Dismissed

State of Karnataka & Ors. v. K. Govindappa & Anr.

Supreme Court20 Nov 20082008 INSC 1328 · [2008] 16 S.C.R. 4572008 INSC 1328

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court dismissed the State of Karnataka's appeal, holding that reservation policy does not apply to single isolated posts. Each discipline with a single post forms a separate cadre, and applying reservation to such a single post would violate the constitutional bar against 100% reservation.

What did the court decide?

The appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.

What the court decided

State of Karnataka & Ors. versus K… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Supreme Court (2008)

¶1

[2008] 16 S.C.R. 457

¶2

I ~ r '

¶3

¶4

STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

II.

K. GOVINDAPPA & ANR.

(Civil Appeal No. 6729 of 2008)

¶9

tli^~

¶10

NOVEMBER 20, 2008

¶11

[ALTAMAS KABIR AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.]

¶12

¶13

-11

¶14

Service law - Reservation, rule of- Applicability to single and isolated posts in respect of different disciplines - Held: c Each discipline which consists of single post exists as separate cadre for the said discipline - Rule of reservation does not apply in respect of single post - Plurality of posts is necessary for reservation - Jn absence thereof, if rule of reservation is applied, Article 16(1) would be offended - On D facts, incumbent appointed to the single post of Lecturer in History in the college - Different disciplines taught in the college for which there were several lecturers - High Court rightly held the said post as single isolated post forming separate cadre in itself and not part of the cadre of Lecturers of different disciplines, thus, reservation policy not applicable E and appointment was just and legal.

¶15

¶16

Respondent no. 1 was appointed as a lecturer in Hisfory in the aided private college owned and managed by the respondent no. 2. The Government of Karnataka "'+ F did not approve the appointment of respondent no. 1 since he was appointed in the post reserved for Scheduled Caste Candidate. Respondent no. 1. filed review petition before the Government on the ground that there was only a single post of lecturer in History in the G college and the reservation policy was not applicable to + the said post. The review petition was rejected. Aggrieved, respondent no. 1 filed writ petition. Appellant-State contended that in the college there were six posts of lecturers, hence, the post of lecturer in History could not 457. H

"'+

[2008] 16 S.C.R.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶21

458

¶22

)I-

¶23

A be considered as a single post. The Single Judge of High Court held that the post of Lecturer in History in the respondent No.2's college was a single isolated post forming a separate cadre in itself and not part of the cadre of Lecturers comprising all the different disciplines B^{taught in the college and the reservation policy was not} applicable to the appointment made to the said post. It held the appointment of the respondent no. 1 as just and legal and directed the appellant to approve his appointment. The Division Bench of High Court upheld c^{the order of the Single Judge. ·Hence the present appeals.}

¶24

t '-

¶25

Dismissing the appeals, the Court

¶26

HELD: 1.1. Isolated and separate posts can exist within a cadre and in case of such posts, if there was only D^{one post, the same could not beset apart for a reserved} candidate. [Para 20] [467-C-D]

¶27

1.2. While there can be no difference of opinion that the expressions "cadre", "post" and "service" cannot be equated with each other, at the same time the E^{submission that single and isolated posts in respect of} different disciplines cannot exist as a separate cadre cannot be accepted. In order to apply the rule of reservation within a cadre, there has to be plurality of posts. Since there is no scope of inter-changeability of F^{posts in the different disciplines, each single. post in a} particular discipline has to be treated as a sing1e post for the purpose of reservation within the meaning of Article · 16(4) of the Constitution. In the absence of duality of posts, if the rule of reservation is to be applied, it will G^{offend the constitutional bar against 100% reservation as} envisaged in Article 16(1) of the Constitution. [Para 19] [466-G-H; 467-A-B]

t·^...

'f-•

1.3. The instant case falls within the category of single isolated posts within a cadre in respect whereof H^{the rule} of^{reservationisinapplicableand the said}

¶32

459

¶33

STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. v. K. GOVINDAPPA & ANR.

;

-of

' / -'"

principle has been correctly applied by the High Court in the facts of this case. Each discipline which consisted of a single post will have to be dealt with as a separate cadre for the said discipline and in view of the settled law that there can be no reservation in respect of a single post, the appointment of the respondent No.1 cannot be faulted. This is particularly so having regard to the fact that the several disciplines are confined to one College alone. [Para 21] [467-E-F]

¶39

¶40

¶41

Arati Ray Choudhary vs. Union of India 1974 (1) SCC c 87, distinguished.

¶42

Dr. Chakradhar Paswan vs. Siate of Bihar 1988 (2) SCC 214 and Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research VS. Faculty Association, 1998 (4) sec 1, relied on.

¶43

.~ "

¶44

Dr. Rajkumar vs. Gulbarga University /LR 1990 Karnataka 2125; State of U.P. vs. Dr. Dina Nath Shukla and Anr. 1997 (9) SCC 662; R.K. Sabharwal vs. State of Punjab 1995 (2) SCC 745; Union of India vs. Madhav 1997 (2) SCC 332; Suresh Chandra vs J.B. Agarwal 1997 (5) SCC 363; Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research vs. K.L. Narasimhan 1997 (6) SCC 283, referred to.

Case Law Reference:

.,_ • I

ILR 1990 Karnataka 2125 Referred to. Para 5 1997 (9) sec 662 Referred to. Para 12 1995 (2) sec 145 Referred to. Para 12 1997 (2) sec 332 Referred to. Para 12 1997 (5) sec 363 Referred to. Para 18 1997 (6) sec 283 Referred to. Para 18 19ss (2) sec 214 Relied on. Para 20

460 SUPREME COURT REPORTS .

¶54

[2008] 16 .S.C.R.

¶55

A 1998 (4) sec 1 Relied on. Para 20 1974 (1) sec a1 distinguished. Para 21

¶56

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6729 of 2008. ·

¶57

¶58

From the Judgment and final Order dated 27.1.2006 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Appeal No. 3125 of 2005 (S-PRO). · •

¶59

WITH

¶60

¶61

Civil Appeal No. 6730 of 2008.

¶62

Sanjay R. Hegde, A Rohen Singh and Amit Kr. Chawla for the Appellants.

¶63

D Girish Ananthamurthy, Vaijayanthi Girish, P.P. Singh, Mallikarjun S., E.R. Sumathy, C.M. Angadi, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal and N. Ganpathy for the Respondents.

¶64

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 1

¶65

E Al TAMAS KABIR, J. 1. Leave granted.

¶66

The respondent No.1, Shri K. Govindappa was appointed as a Lecturer in History in an aided private college owned and managed by the Vinayaka Rural Education Society, F the respondent No.2 herein, with effect from 10th July, 1994. The said college, which was situated at Hegalavadi, Gubbi Taluk, Tumkur District, applied for approval of the appointment of the respondent No.1, but such prayer was refused by the Government of Karnataka on the ground that the appointment G had been made in violation of the Roster Policy and that he had been appointed in a post,which was reserved for a Scheduled Caste~candidate. A review petition was filed t)y·the respondent No.1 before the Government contending that since there was only a single post of Lecturer in History in the college, the H reservation policy would not apply to the said post in which the

¶67

' ' +

¶68

STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. v. K. GOVINDAPPA & 461 ANR. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]

""r

respondent No.1 had been appointed. As the claim of the A respondent No.1 was rejected by the Government, he filed a Writ Petition before the Karnataka High Court praying for quashing of the orders passed by the Government and for a direction upon the concerned authorities to approve his appointment with effect from 21st July, 1994, from which date B he had joined his duties. Contesting the claim of the respondent No.1 the appeliants contended before the Writ Court that even though the Management was running only one college, it had different disciplines for which there were several Lecturers. It was contended that the college had to maintain the Roster for c the purpose of making appointments after taking into consideration the entire cadre of Lecturer~. irrespective of subjects. It was also contended that in the college in question there were six posts of Lecturers and h~nce, the post of Lecturer in History could not be considered as a single post. D

¶74

¶75

The submissions made on behalf of the appellants was rejected by the learned Single Judge upon holding that since the post of Lecturer in History was a single post, the reservation policy would not apply to the appointment made to the said post. The learned Single Judge quashed the orders passed by the Government upon holding that the appointment of the respondent No.1 was just and legal and directed the appellants to give approval to his appointment.

¶76

¶77

The matter was taken up to the Division Bench of the High Court by the State of Karnataka and its officers, who are also the appellants in these proceedings. While considering the matter, the Division Bench posed the following two questions which it considered relevant for the purpose of deciding the appeal, namely :-

¶78

¶79

¶80

"( 1) Whether the post of lecturer in History to which the writ petitioner was appointed was a single post; and

¶81

(2) If the said post was a single post whether the fourth respondent Management was bound to reserve the post

¶82

¶83

462

¶84

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶85

[2008] 16 S.C.R.

¶86

,._ '

¶87

A for a member of the scheduled caste as contended by respondent No.1 to 3 in the writ petition."

¶88

The Division Bench confirmed the views expressed by the learned Single Judge and relying on the decision of this B^{Court in the case of}^{br. Chakradhar Paswan vs.State of Bihar,} [(1988) 2 SCC 214] and the Full Bench decision of the Karnataka High Court in Dr. Rajkumar vs. Gulbarga University, [ILR 1990 Karnataka 2125], held that the decision of the learned Single Judge did not require any interference.

¶89

-1- ,, .,_

¶90

c 6. The State of Karnataka an.d its authorities are in appeal against the decision of the Karnataka High Cou~t in Writ Appeal No. 3125 of 2005 dated 27th January, 2006.

¶91

On behalf of the appellant, State of Karnataka, Mr. D^{Sanjay Hegde, learned advocate, submitted that both the} learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court erroheously applied the ratio of the decision in Chakradhar Paswan's case (supra) upon holding that each discipline in the college constituted a separate cadre within a service in which E^{Lecturers were appointed and the isolated posts could not be} taken together for applying the roster by rotation for reservations purposes. Mr. Hegde urged that the posts in the different disciplines were meant to be filled by Lecturers who formed a cadre and each discipline which consisted of a single post of Lecturer did not constitute a separate cadre in respect of the F said discipline as otherwise without applying the principle of roster rotation, the said single post would always have to be filled up from amongst general candidates and a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe candidate would always have to compete against general candidate for such purpose which G would destroy and/or negate the very object and purpose of Article 16( 4) of the Constitution.

¶92

¶93

Mr. Hegde submitted that all the posts of Lecturers, irrespective of the subjects taught, were treated by the college H^{as one cadre for the purpose of maintaining the roster system}

1'~ ~- • \

-ti' ,.

e - +-

STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. v. K. GOVINDAPPA & 463 ANR. [AL TAMAS KABIR, J.]

•^-1

...,.. ' --t

':_-t

:;,,.

for reservation of posts. However, by applying the ratio in . A Chakradhar Paswan case (supra), the High Court had quite erroneously quashed the appointment of the respondent No.1 as Lecturer in History which, according to the roster, had been reserved for a Scheduled Caste candidate.

¶110

It was next urged by Mr. Hegde that the expression "cadre" could not be equated with the expression "post" as defined in Fundamental Rules 9 and 4, nor could th~ expression "cadre" be understood as synonymous to the expression "service". Mr. Hegde submitted that "cadre" as c defined in the Fundamental Rules refers to the strength of ~ service and has no concern with individual posts in a particular discipline which all form part of one cadre, particularly when all the posts in the cadre of Lecturer pertained to the same institution.

¶111

Referring to the decision in Chakradhar Paswan's case (supra) Mr. Hegde submitted that the facts of the said ca$e were unique to that case as within the same Directorate three separate branches of indigenous medicines, namely, Homeopathy, Unani and Ayurvedic, were treated as isolated and separate posts, although, they carried the same scale of pay, and the three separate posts of Deputy Director of each branch could not be grouped together for the purpose of applying the 50 point roster. It is in that context that it was held by this Court that isolated and separate posts can exist in the same cadre without violating Article 16(1) and (4) of the Constitution.

¶112

¶113

On the other hand, Mr. Hegde referred to the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of Arati Ray Choudhary vs. Union of India ((1974) 1 SCC 871, where^G the Rule of "carry forward" was applied in the case of a reserved vacancy which remained unfilled. The principle upheld in the said case was with regard to two posts which were by their nature isolated posts but belonging to the same cadre. Although, when the first post.fell vacant it was meant to be H

¶114

464 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶115

[2008J 16 S.C.R.

¶116

A reserved. for a reserved candidate, it was filled by a general candidate, by applying the carry forward rule, the subsequent vacancy had to be for a reserved candidate even if it was a single post and would not amount to 100% reservation so as to offend Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

¶117

s·

¶118

.. 12. Mr. Hegde also referred to the decision of this Court in State ofU.P. vs. Dr. Dina Nath Shukla &Another[(1997) 9 sec 6~2], where the principle of rotation was upheld with regard to isolated posts to give meaning to the provisions of c^{reservations and Articles15(2) to (4),16(4) and16(4-A) of the} Constitution. In dealing with the matters, the learned Judge also took note of the decisions of this Court in i) R.K. Sabharwal vs. State ~f Punjab, [(1995) 2 SCC 745 and ii) Union of India vs. Madhav {(1997) 2 sec 332] where the same views were expressed and it was reiterated that application of the rule of D rotation for filling up a single post did not offend Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution.

¶119

Reference 'was .lastly made to another Constitution Bench decision in the case of Post Graduate Institute of E^{Medical Education and Researchvs.Faculty Association} [(1998) 4 sec 1), wherein the views expressed in the earlier decisions relating to reservation in a single post again came up for consideration. Reversing the views expressed earlier in .Union of India vs. Madhav (supra) and in other similar cases, F^{the Constitution Bench held that there couldbe no reservation} in respect of a single post cadre as by applying the rule of rotation, the single post could become a reserved post, which was contrary to the Constitutional scheme which did/ not permit 100% reservation in a single post. While trying to reconcile the G^{view of the Constitution Bench in}^{_Arati Ray Choudhary's_case} (supra), it was explained that the deciion rend_red tbere!n was in the context of the "carry .forwar.d" principle and .did not support reservation in a single cadr.e post.,

¶120

14; Mr. Hegde submitted that since the posts of Lecturers H in the college constituted one single cadre, only the roster

1- \ '

~ "'

-+'"

....:

465

STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. v. K. GOVINOAPPA & ANR. [AL TAMAS KABIR, J.]

""'^--t -r

___..

ma-' ~

principle would apply, as had been made applicable in the instant case and the High Court had erred in treating, each discipline as a separate unit for the purpose of reservation. It was submitted that the impugned orders passed by the learned Single Judge, as also the Division B~nch, were liable to be set aside.

¶136

Responding to Mr. Hegde's submissions, Mr. P.P. Singh, learned advocate, reiterated the stand taken on behalf of the respondent No.1 before the High Court and submitted that the post of Lecturer in History being a single post, the c question of reservation did not arise as that would amount to 100% reservation, which would offend the constitutional mandate of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. Mr. Singh referred to the letter dated 28th July, 1994, addressed to the Joint Director, Department of Public Instruction, Bangalore D Division, on behalf of the college seeking approval of the appointment of the respondent No.1 as permanent Lecturer in History, wherein it had been explained that no application for appointment had been received from any Scheduled Tribes candidate and that the respondent No.1 was the only candidate for the post. E

¶137

Mr. Singh submitted that the judgment of the High Court was based on sound principles of law which did not warrant any interference in the appeal.

¶138

¶139

-\ ~

¶140

Vi/hile adopting Mr. Singh's submissions, Ms. E.R. Sumathy, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.2 college, urged that the decision in Arati Ray Choudhary's case involved two schools being run by the South Eastern Railways, where plurality of posts existed which made it possible to apply G the rule of rotation since the bar of 100% reservation would 1^not be applicable in the facts of the case. Mr. Sumathy submitted that the principle enunciated in Arati Ray Choudhury's case would not be applicable in the instant case where only one institution was involved and Lecturers of such separate

¶141

¶142

466

¶143

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2008] 16 S.C.R.

) I

, ~^"'!".-

A discipline formed a single cadre.

¶148

We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and the decisions cited by learned counsel in support thereof. In dealing with the issue. 8^{raised in this appeal, it has to be kept in mind that some of the} earlier decisions in Madhavi's case (supra), in the case of Suresh Chandra as J.B. Agarwal [(1997) 5 SCC 363 and Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research vs. K.L. Narasimhan, [(1997) 6 SCC 283, in which reservation by c^{rotation even in respect of a single post had been approved,} was subsequently overruled in the Constitution Bench decision in the case of Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research vs. Faculty Association (supra) and it was held that in no case could reservation be made applicable in respect of a single post. The· Constitution Bench approved the views D expressed in Dr. Chakradhar Paswan's case (supra) following those expressed by the earlier Constitution Bench in Arati Roy Choudhary's case (supra). In view of the above, the only question which we are called upon to consider is whether the High Court was right in treating the post of Lecturer in History E in the respondent No.2 college as a single isolated post forming a separate cadre in itself and not part of the cadre of Lecturers comprising all the different disciplines taught in the college.

¶149

F 19. In this regard, Mr. Hegde has explained the difference between "post" and "cadre" and that the two expressions could not be equated with each other. He has also explained that the expression "cadre" was not synonymous with "service" and that merely because there were single posts in the different G^{disciplines taught in the college, it did not mean that each post} constituted a separate cadre within the cadre of Lecturers. While there can be no difference of opinion that the expressions "cadre!', "post" and "service" cannot be equated with each other, at the same time the submission that single and isolated posts in respect of different disciplines cannot exist as a

)--

/ 1- -

.. I

467

' -1

t .,( i ~. t (

STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. v. K. GOVINDAPPA & ANR. [Al TAMAS KABIR, J.]

',,_

--+

separate cadre cannot be accepted. In order to apply the rule of reservation within a cadre, there has to be plurality of posts. Since there is no scope of inter-changeability of posts in the different disciplines, each single post in a particular discipline has to be treated as a single post for the purpose of reservation within the meaning of Article 16(4) of the Constitution. In the absence of duality of posts, if the rule of reservation is to be applied, it will offend' the constitutional bar against 100% reservation as envisaged in Article 16( 1) of the Constitution.

¶167

¶168

The decision in Dr. Chakradhar Paswan's case (supra), c which has been subsequently approved by the Constitution Bench in the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research case· (supra) makes it clear that isolated and separate posts can exist within a cadre and in case of such posts, if there was only one post, the same could not be set D apart for a reserved candidate.

¶169

In out view, the present case falls within the category of single isolated posts within a cadre in respect whereof the rule of reservation is inapplicable and the said principle has -been correctly applied by the High Court in the facts of this E case. As indicated by the High Court, each discipline which consisted of a single post will have to be dealt with as a separate cadre for the said discipline and in view of the settled law that there can be no reservation in respect of a single post, the appointment of the respondent No.1 cannot be faulted. This F is particularly so having regard to the fact that the several disciplines are confined to one College alone. That is what distinguishes the facts of this case from those of Arati Roy Choudhary's case (supra) in which the rule of rotation could be applied on account of the fact that two posts of Headmistress G were available in two colleges run by the same management. Moreover, in Dr. Chakradhar Paswan's case (supra) on which reliance was placed by the High Court it was noticed that while upholding the rule of rotation the Constitution Bench in Arati F?oy Choudhary's case (supra) did not support reservation in a

468

[2008] 16 S:C.R.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶174

' )- r '

¶175

¶176

A single cadre post. .

¶177

We, the·refore, have no hesitation in upho1ding the· decision of the Karnataka·High Court, ·in the facts of this case. The appeal, therefore, m'ust fail, and is dismissed withdut any B order as to costs.

¶178

Since the question in issue in this appeal is the same as that in Civil Appeal No. 6730 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.5353 of 2007- The Government of Karnataka and another vs. Bidarambika Vidya Samasthe Regd. & others), C which is being heard along with this appeal, the same is also dismissed since the decision therein was rendered in the light of the decision iri Writ Appeal No~3125 of 2005, out of which the present appeal arises. The same is, therefore, dismissed along with the instant appeal.

N.J.

Appeals dismissed.

.,;

State of Karnataka & Ors. v. K. Govindappa & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

State of Karnataka & Ors. v. K. Govindappa & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak Bajaj versus State of Maharashtra & Anr.

Radhey Shyam Gupta versus Punjab National Bank & Anr.

Director ( Studies) & Ors. versus Vaibhav Singh Chauhan

Om Prakash Marwaha (D) Thr. Lrs. & Ors. versus Jagdish Lal Marwaha (D) Thr. Lrs.

Brigadier Man Mohan Sharma, Frgs (Retd.) versus Lt. Gen. Depinder Singh

Mootha Venkateswara Rao (Dead) Tr. Lrs. versus Godhavari Co-Op Milk P. Union Ltd. & Ors.