Not Prejudicial To Either Local Or Non Local Candidates: Karnataka High Court Upholds Recruitment Circular With Reservations U/Art 371J

The Karnataka High Court has upheld the government circular dated 01.02.2023 which provides clarification on the application of reservations under Article 371J of the Constitution for candidates from the Kalyana Karnataka Region, formerly known as the Hyderabad-Karnataka region. Justice N S Sanjay Gowda highlighted that the core objective of introducing special provisions in the Hyderabad-Karnataka region was to acknowledge its underdevelopment and offer incentives for education and employment. "...the very objective of amending the Constitution and making special provisions in respect of the Hyderabad-Karnataka region was to, firstly, acknowledge the fact that the Hyderabad-Karnataka region was not as well developed as the other parts of Karnataka and secondly, to make provisions to ensure that it was treated differently and grant incentives to the persons hailing from the region in the matter of providing education and employment (including by promotion to persons hailing from the region) so as to ensure that the Hyderabad-Karnataka region comes out of its backwardness. Thus, any orders made in exercise of the powers under Article 371J would have to be examined and considered keeping in mind this underlying objective."The decision pertains to a recruitment notification issued in 2020 by the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (KPTCL) for the positions of Assistant Engineers (Electrical) and Junior Engineers.The said circular clarified that local candidates from the Kalyana Karnataka Region should first be considered for recruitment against non-local cadre positions, either through promotion or direct recruitment. If unsuccessful in securing these positions, their candidature should then be considered for local cadre posts.The new circular effectively reversed previous circulars issued between June 6, 2020, and June 15, 2022, which had outlined a separate recruitment process for local and non-local cadre posts.The non-local cadre applicants challenged the circular, arguing that altering the selection process after candidates had already exercised their options was against established legal principles. They contended that candidates who opted for the local cadre had relinquished their right to seek appointments in the non-local cadre, and this decision could not be reversed mid-process.However, the state defended the circular, claiming that it was a necessary step to ensure the true intent of Article 371J was realized. The government contended that the circular's application of reservation aligned with constitutional intent and was well within the powers vested under paragraph 19 of the Governor’s Order.Findings: The single judge bench emphasised that Article 371J aims to reserve a proportion of posts for local candidates from this region, ensuring their representation in the job market.The court further noted that while Article 371J intended to provide local candidates with reserved posts, it did not intend to restrict them from applying for other positions available in the state. It argued that the state government could not limit the right of local candidates to apply for non-local cadre positions by mandating option exercises.“The State Government, while inviting applications for both local cadre and non-local cadre posts, was required to enable the local persons to apply for both the local cadre posts and also the non-local cadre posts. The State Government had no authority to restrict the right of the persons hailing from the local region to apply for non-local cadre posts.”The judgment highlighted that choosing to opt for non-local cadre posts could result in reduced chances of employment for local candidates, considering that non-local candidates generally hail from more developed regions. The court observed that the government's decision to issue separate notifications for local and non-local cadre positions better aligned with constitutional intent.Following this it held, “The State Government, in the guise of obtaining options for allotment in the local cadre, post recruitment, could not obviously deprive the local persons of their right to seek appointment in the non-local cadre. The State Government, by mandating the exercise of an option by the local persons, was giving them a Hobson’s choice.” The Court observed that if a candidate chose to opt for a non-local cadre post, the chances of him securing employment in the non-local cadre would be lesser if he was not as meritorious as candidates hailing from regions other than that of Hyderabad-Karnataka. A non-local person, by definition, is a person hailing from a developed region as compared to a local person who hails from the Hyderabad-Karnataka region, which is constitutionally recognised as being backward and which needs certain special provisions to uplift it.The bench added, “The State, though went back and forth in the matter of issuing a single notification for both local and non-local cadre posts and issuing separate...

Not Prejudicial To Either Local Or Non Local Candidates: Karnataka High Court Upholds Recruitment Circular With Reservations U/Art 371J

Mustafa Plumber

Tags