{"id":315422,"date":"2024-02-27T11:00:49","date_gmt":"2024-02-27T05:30:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=315422"},"modified":"2024-02-28T15:35:48","modified_gmt":"2024-02-28T10:05:48","slug":"supreme-court-upholds-kpsc-recruitment-notification-for-home-science-lecturers-post","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/27\/supreme-court-upholds-kpsc-recruitment-notification-for-home-science-lecturers-post\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court upholds KPSC Recruitment Notification for Home Science Lecturers Post; criticizes HC\u2019s erroneous approach"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Supreme Court:<\/span> In an appeal filed against the judgment passed by the Karnataka High Court confirming the order of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (‘Tribunal’), wherein the Tribunal quashed the notification for filling up 18 posts of lecturers of Home Science in First Grade College run by Karnataka on the ground that specifying the subject categories is necessary for advertising the vacant posts, the division bench of Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha*<\/span> and Aravind Kumar,JJ. while setting aside the impugned judgment and order, held that the High Court committed an error in not focusing on what the Rule provides for and whether the advertisement is in consonance with the Rule. Further, it said that to teach undergraduates, the qualification prescribed is simply a postgraduation degree in the subject of Home Science and it does not matter in which subject of Home Science that the post-graduation is obtained.<\/p>\n

Background:<\/p>\n

The Karnataka Public Service Commission (‘KPSC’) issued a notification on 24-12-2007 for filling up approximately 2500 posts of lecturers in the Government First Grade Colleges. Following the advertisement, the appellants, having the required qualification, were selected to the post of Home Science lecturer. In the meanwhile, respondent 8 approached the Tribunal seeking quashing of the notification by filing an application on the ground that the breakup of the specialised subjects within Home Science are not specified in the notification.<\/p>\n

The Tribunal, while quashing the advertisement, held that Home Science is not a subject, but a course which comprises of different subjects. In the past, KPSC had released notifications specifying vacancies against each specialisation, and appointments were also made after notifying vacancies against each specialisation; and if posts are not filled up subject-wise, and a lecturer possessing degree in Home Science in a particular subject is made to teach students in another subject, the education of the students would suffer.<\/p>\n

Issue:<\/span> Whether a notification for filling up 18 posts of lecturers of Home Science in First Grade College run by Karnataka is liable to be quashed for not providing the breakup of the ‘subjects’ within Home Science?<\/p>\n

Analysis:<\/p>\n

After examining the Karnataka Education Department Service (Department of Collegiate Education) (Recruitment) Rules, 1964, and the Karnataka Education Department Service (Department of Collegiate Education) (Special Recruitment) Rules, 1993, which govern the process of recruitment, the Court said that as long as a candidate holds a master’s degree in Home Science, he\/she will be qualified for applying to the post. It does not matter in which speciality within Home Science the master’s degree is obtained.<\/p>\n

The Court further took note of the statement made by the University Grants Commission (‘UGC’) in the affidavit, which states that there is no separate subject wise provision for the post of lecturers Home Science.<\/p>\n

The Court remarked that appointments to these posts are in the nature of ‘status’, which means that the service and its conditions can be unilaterally changed by the amendment of the Rules. Further, it said that the first duty of the Tribunal is to verify and examine the claims made by a party in the context of the Rule that governs the field. If the Rule does not prescribe a subject-wise speciality, there is no justification for the Tribunal or the High Court to examine the propriety, or for that matter, the beneficial effect of the rule.<\/p>\n

The Court also said that the fact that an undergraduate student would be required to choose a specialisation when he takes up a PG program has no bearing on the qualification of the lecturer teaching the undergraduate students. Further, the assumption of the High Court that Home Science is not a subject, instead it is a stream, or a genesis has no application to the recruitment of lecturers for an undergraduate program. For under-graduation, Home Science in itself is the subject.<\/p>\n

It added that as per the latest information bulletin issued by it towards National Eligibility Test conducted in December 2023, UGC also considers Home Science as a subject.<\/p>\n

The Court concluded that the requirement, as assumed by the Tribunal and the High Court, is not a mandate of the recruitment Rules. Even otherwise, the Tribunal and the High Court have erroneously based their conclusions on policy considerations relating to how such a breakup would be beneficial to the candidates. Thus, while setting aside the judgments, the Bench upheld the recruitment process and affirmed the appointments made based on the advertisement.<\/p>\n

Thus, the Court held that the High Court had committed an error in not focusing on what the Rule provides for and whether the advertisement is in consonance with the Rule. It further remarked that if the High Court had confined itself to the basic features of judicial review, it would have avoided committing the error that it did.<\/p>\n

[Vidya K. v. State of Karnataka, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 178<\/a>, decided on<\/span> 22-02-2024<\/span>]<\/p>\n

*Judgment Authored by: Justice PS Narasimha<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Know Thy Judge | Supreme Court of India: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n