Recruitment Process Matters To Be Filed In Administrative Tribunals First, HCs Only Authorised To Review U/Art 226, 227: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has held that in matters related to the recruitment process, administrative tribunals are the courts of first instance, and High Courts have the role of judicial review under Article 226/227 of the Indian Constitution.

A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice M G S Kamal added that the Administrative Tribunals Act has been promulgated for adjudication or trial of disputes and complaints regarding recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services by the Administrative Tribunals. 

“In view of the statutory bar contained under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and the legal position enunciated by the Apex Court in L.Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India reported in (1997)3 SCC 261, it is very clear that the Tribunals constituted under the Act, are the courts of first instance in the matters pertaining to the process of recruitment and it is only a Division Bench of the respective High Courts vested with power of judicial review against the decision/orders passed by the Tribunals.”

The case involved the issuance of a recruitment notification by the Karnataka State Department of Public Education for the position of Graduate Primary Teacher (class 6 to 8) for 2020-21. The recruitment process was based on specific rules and regulations, including the reservation of posts for various categories.

The court reviewed the legal framework governing this recruitment, including the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990, and the Karnataka Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes, and Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment, etc.) Rules, 1992. These rules mandated the submission of caste and income certificates.

The court highlighted that the Administrative Tribunals Act confers jurisdiction on administrative tribunals for resolving disputes related to recruitment and service conditions, as provided under Article 323-A.

Accordingly it said

“We are of the considered view that the writ petition filed by the respondent Nos. 27 to 47 (Akshata Chougala & Others) seeking reliefs as sought for therein, under the facts and circumstances of the case could not have been entertained that too solely relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of T.K.Rangarajan Vs State of Tamil Nadu and others reported in (2003) 6 SCC 581, facts of which are palpably different and distinguishable.”

However, the state filed an affidavit in the court stating that subsequent to the impugned order a selection list in the ratio of 1:1 was prepared and published on 08.03.2023. In that, out of 22,432 eligible candidates, income certificates of both husband and parents were considered and a list consisting of 13,352 candidates was prepared on the basis of merit cum roster.

It is further deposed that on account of re-doing the exercise by applying both circular dated 12.12.1986 and the order of the Single Judge while drawing up a fresh list on the basis of individual merits of the candidates, 451 candidates whose names were enlisted in the earlier selection list dated 18.11.2022 have been left out.

The government urged the court that it be permitted to proceed with appointments at least in respect of the said 13,352 candidates. On account of the acute shortage of teachers, it is impacting the State's function in imparting education which is a constitutional obligation of the State.

The bench considering the imminent requirement of the Graduate Primary School Teachers and large vacancies across the State and in the interest of the students of 6 to 8 standards who are left high and dry for want of teachers, permitted the State government to proceed with appointing teachers from 13352 selected candidates as per the list dated 08.03.2023.

Further, it clarified that the appointment of the candidates who have not submitted the caste cum income certificate in the form prescribed in the notification and which is not in terms of Government Order, and who are included in the list in view of the order passed by the Single Judge be deferred until the outcome of the result of the challenge.

It added,

“As regards the remaining 451 posts since it is contended that their names have been excluded purely on the merit basis, it is clarified that if in the event the eligibility of such candidates who have not furnished the caste cum income certificate in the prescribed form is held to be invalid, such posts may be filled from amongst the candidates who have been excluded on merits and the candidates who have submitted certificates in the prescribed form.” it said.

Thus, the court partially allowed the writ appeals, setting aside the impugned order and permitting the state to proceed with appointments under specific conditions while ensuring that the legal issues were adequately addressed.

“This provision of enabling the State Government to proceed with the process of appointment is made under the peculiar fact situation of the matter wherein the present litigation has brought the process of appointment of teachers of class 6 to 8 across the State to a grinding halt.”

Appearance: Senior Advocate V. Lakshminarayana for Advocate ANUSHA L. Advocate Vishwanatha Shetty V, Advocate Naik Nityanand Venkataraman. Advocate Mithun G A for appellants 

Additional Advocate General Vikram Huilgol a/w AGA Mamatha Shetty. for R 1, 2 & 4 to 26.

Advocate K Nanda for R3;

Senior Advocate K N Phanindra, a/w Advocate Latha S. Shetty, for R27 to 47.

Advocate Vijaya Simha Reddy for R48 to 163.

Advocate Dilip Kumar, for R164 to R207.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 392.

Case Title: Narendra Babu G.V & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment 

Also Read: Consider Applications Of Married Women For Primary Teacher Posts On Basis Of Caste & Income Certificates Of Parents, Not Spouses: Karnataka High Court