Supreme & Paige

Institution must adhere to the selection process specified in its advertisement, especially when it complies with relevant statutory mandates.


Bangalore University, under the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000, advertised on 21.03.2018 to fill backlog vacancies reserved for scheduled castes (SCs) and scheduled tribes (STs). Of the 34 posts for Assistant Professors, one in the English department was reserved for an ST candidate. The qualifications required were as per UGC Regulations, 2010 and 2016. The advertisement specified that the selection would follow the Karnataka State Civil Services (Unfilled Vacancies Reserved for SCs and STs) (Special Recruitment) Rules, 2001. Rule 6 of these rules gives preference to ST candidates aged 29-40 over more meritorious candidates.


Observation of High Court

The High Court observed that both the appellant and respondent No. 7 were eligible ST candidates for the Assistant Professor position in the English department. Despite the appellant being higher in merit, respondent No. 7 was within the preferred age bracket of 29-40 years as per Rule 6 of the 2001 Rules. Although the university advertised that the selection would follow the 2001 Rules, it appointed the appellant based on merit. Respondent No. 7 challenged this appointment, and the Single Judge of the High Court ruled in favor of respondent No. 7, stating that the university’s failure to follow its advertised selection mode was illegal. The Division Bench upheld this decision, confirming that respondent No. 7 should be appointed according to the 2001 Rules.


Contention/Submissions of Appellants:

Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, contends that the university’s advertisement stating the ‘Mode of Selection’ under the 2001 Rules was a mistake. He argues that the university should be governed by the Universities Act and its statutes, not the 2001 Rules, which are made under the Karnataka State Civil Services Act, 1978. He asserts that as an autonomous institution, the university cannot be bound by rules meant for State Civil Services.


Contention/Submissions of Respondent:

Mr. Anand Sanjay M. Nuli, learned Senior Counsel for the university, aligns with the appellant’s position, arguing that Section 78 of the Universities Act overrides other laws. He emphasizes that Section 53 of the Universities Act governs appointments for university teachers, including assistant professors, readers, and professors.
Mr. Gagan Gupta, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No. 7, contends that the university’s advertisement specifying the ‘Mode of Selection’ as per the 2001 Rules fulfilled the government’s mandate under Section 4(1A). He argues that the purpose of introducing this sub-section was to ensure universities follow the 2001 Rules, supported by letters from the State Government urging compliance with these rules.


Observation:The Court rejected the appellant’s claim that the advertisement specifying the 2001 Rules for selection was a mistake, affirming that the university must adhere to its advertisement. The Court cited the clear mandate of Section 4(1A) of the Reservation Act, 1990, the intention behind the amendment, and the university’s compliance with government directives. Consequently, the writ petition by respondent No. 7 was rightly allowed, and the Single Judge and Division Bench’s decisions were upheld. Although the appellant’s appointment violated the 2001 Rules, she served for over four years due to ongoing litigation. The Court suggested that the university consider creating a supernumerary post to accommodate the appellant. The appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.



The principle established is that an institution must adhere to the selection process specified in its advertisement, especially when it complies with relevant statutory mandates. Deviations from advertised selection methods, even if claimed as mistakes, cannot override statutory requirements or government directives. Additionally, remedies for wrongful appointments should consider equitable solutions for all parties involved.



No orders to cost.



Case tittle: Chaitra Nagammanvar vs State of Karnataka and Others

Case no. Civil appeal 6772 of 2023


Jatin Jain,

S.N.B.P. Law College, Pune.



Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top