Recruitment Process| Administrative Tribunals Are Courts Of First Instance; HCs Only Have Role Of Judicial Review Under Article 226/227 Of Constitution- Karnataka HC
A Karnataka High Court Bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice MGS Kamal has held that in matters which relate to recruitment processes, administrative tribunals are Courts of first instance, whereas High Courts only have the role of judicial review under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
In that context, it was said that, "in view of statutory bar contained under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and the legal position enunciated by the Apex Court in L.Chandra Kumar's case, it is very clear that the Tribunals constituted under the Act, 1985 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."
Senior Advocate V Lakshminarayana, among others, appeared for the appellants, while AAG Vikram Huilgol, Senior Advocate KN Phanindra, among others, appeared for the respondents.
In this case, the issue centered around a recruitment notification issued by the Karnataka State Department of Public Education, concerning the hiring of Graduate Primary Teachers (for classes 6 to 8) for the 2020-21 academic year. This recruitment process adhered to specific rules and regulations, including provisions for reserving positions for different categories of applicants.
The Court conducted an examination of the legal framework that governed this recruitment process, taking into account the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Act of 1990, along with the Karnataka Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes, and Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment, etc.) Rules of 1992. These regulations explicitly required candidates to submit certificates related to their caste and income.
The state submitted an affidavit in Court, explaining that following the challenged court order, a selection list was prepared and released on March 8, 2023, with a 1:1 ratio. Out of 22,432 eligible candidates, this list was created based on their merits and reservation criteria, taking into account both the candidate's and their parents' income certificates. As a result, a list comprising 13,352 candidates was established.
However, in the process of reevaluating and recalculating the list, incorporating both a circular from December 12, 1986, and the Single Judge's order, 451 candidates who were initially included in the selection list from November 18, 2022, were excluded. The state urged the court to allow them to proceed with the appointment of at least these 13,352 candidates. The pressing issue was a severe shortage of teachers, which was adversely affecting the state's ability to fulfill its constitutional duty of providing education.
The High Court stressed that the Administrative Tribunals Act confers jurisdiction on administrative tribunals in order to resolve disputes which relate to recruitment and service conditions, as under Article 323A of the Constitution.
Subsequently, the Court considered 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, the Court said that, "we are of the considered view that the respondent-State be permitted to proceed with appointing teachers from 13352 selected candidates as per the list dated 08.03.2023 produced at Annexure-R6 to the affidavit."
As for the candidates who did not submit the caste cum income certificate in the form prescribed, the Court ordered that, "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."
In light of the same, the Court partially allowed the appeals, while setting aside the impugned order and permitting the state to proceed with appointments under specific conditions while ensuring that the legal issues were addressed.
Cause Title: Narendra Babu GV & Ors. vs The State of Karnataka & Ors.
