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 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 notifications for both cadre posts, has, ultimately and hopefully, realised that the issuance of separate notifications and adopting separate recruitment processes for the local and non-local cadre posts was more advantageous to a local person hailing from the Hyderabad Karnataka region and was in line with the constitutional intent underlying Art 371J. This decision of the State Government cannot, therefore, be found fault with.”
Further it opined that the consequences of the options exercised under certain Notifications, issued between the period 06.06.2020 and 15.06.2022, on the local persons hailing from the Hyderabad-Karnataka region was gravely prejudicial to them and it obviously required the State Government to address them to ensure that their chances of securing employment was not adversely affected merely because they were compelled to exercise their choice to choose their cadre at the time of applying.
Since here the recruitment notification was issued on 24.01.2022, it was held that the same would have to abide by the directions issued in the impugned Circular dated 01.02.2023.
Addressing the contention of changing rules midway, the court pointed out that essential eligibility and selection criteria remained consistent throughout the recruitment process. It underlined that the focus was on upholding the opportunities of both local and non-local candidates without adversely affecting either.
“The eligibility criteria for applying remained the same for all candidates and the selection criteria i.e., comparative merit on the basis of the marks secured in the competitive examination, remained the same for all the candidates. Thus, the essential attributes for being considered for recruitment remained unchanged for all the candidates throughout the recruitment process and, therefore, the contention that there were changes in the rules midway, cannot be accepted.”
However, taking into account that the present imbroglio occurred solely due to the reversal of decisions by the State Government, which gave rise to an expectation for the non-local candidates of securing a chance of an employment, it issued certain directions in respect of the vacancies pertaining to the Assistant Engineers posts.
The court accordingly issued a slew of directions acknowledging that there were posts of Assistant Engineers in the local cadre lying unfilled while a large number of eligible candidates from the non-local region were waiting for employment in the non-local cadre.
"It is to be borne in mind that we are living in a time where the chances of securing an employment are scarce and by the time the next recruitment takes place, many, if not most of the candidates, would become ineligible.”
Directions
A. Direct the State and the KPTCL to treat this as an exceptional case and ask for a fresh option from the local persons hailing from the Hyderabad-Karnataka region who have been found eligible for selection in the non-local cadre, as to whether they would be willing to opt for the local cadre.
B. Direct the KPTCL to consider the local persons exercising such an option to choose the local cadre, and then select them against the posts in the local cadre.
C. Direct, as a result of this opting by the local persons into the local cadre (notwithstanding the fact that they were entitled to be selected to the non-local cadre posts), if corresponding vacancies become available in the non-local cadre posts, the State and the KPTCL shall then offer these vacancies to non-local candidates on the basis of merit.
D. Make it clear that the selection of the local candidates to the non-local cadre shall be made only if they wish to choose the non-local cadre and they shall not be compelled to opt for the local cadre.
E. Make it clear that no local persons who are found in the provisional select list as of now shall be displaced from the list by reason of the local persons opting for the local cadre under the process directed above. If a situation arises wherein a local person may be displaced from the list of the local cadre posts, the persons from the non-local cadre posts who had opted for the local cadre shall be continued in the non-local cadre only.
F. Direct that if the local persons are not entitled to be selected to the local cadre posts, they would have to be necessarily considered against the local cadre posts.
G. Direct that in the event it is found that no vacancies arise in the local cadre posts, even after the exercise of options from local persons to opt for the local cadre is concluded, the vacancies shall be carried forward as backlog vacancies, as provided in the Governor’s Order.
Accordingly, the petitions were dismissed.
Case Title: Naveen Kumar H N & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 4979 OF 2023 (S-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 6588 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 333
Appearance: Senior Advocate M.S.Bhagwath for Advocate Satish K. Advocate Keshav M Datar for Petitioners.
Additional Advocate General Vikram Huilgol a/w AGA M S Nagaraja for R-1 & R-2.
Senior Advocate Sriranga for Advocate Sumana Nagananad for R-3.
Advocate N K Ramesh for R-4.
Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi for Advocate Parashurama A L for R-5 TO R-16.
Senior Advocate Udaya Holla for Advocate Vivek Holla for R-17 TO R-96.