THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. versus SHANKAR BABURAO KANGRALKAR & ANR. on 6 February 2018

[2018] 1 S.C.R. 909

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

v.

SHANKAR BABURAO KANGRALKAR & ANR.

(Civil Appeal No. 1612 of 2018)

FEBRUARY 06, 2018

[MADAN B. LOKUR AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.]

Karnataka Education Department Services (Department ofPublic Instructions) (Recruitment) (Amendment) Rules, 2002 –Recruitment Rules – Interpretation of – Recruitment notification wasissued by the appellants for the appointment of High School AssistantTeacher Grade-2 – In terms of the notification the eligibility criteriafor Hindi Language Assistant in Government High School was: (i)One must be a holder of Bachelor Degree with Hindi as majorsubject and (ii) One must be holder of degree in Education with theconcerned subject or subjects as teaching methods – RespondentNo.1 was not selected on the ground that he did not possess therequisite qualification for appointment – Both Tribunal and HighCourt held that Respondent No.1 was entitled to be considered forselection to the post of Language Assistant – On appeal, held: Therecruitment rules make a specific category for a Hindi LanguageAssistant by requiring a candidate to not only hold a Bachelor’sDegree but hold such a degree with Hindi as a major subject – Theadditional requirement under the Recruitment Rules is that thecandidate must hold a degree in Education with the concernedsubject (Hindi) as a teaching method – Respondent No.1 is a holderof a Bachelor’s Degree with Hindi as a major subject but does nothold a B.Ed Degree with Hindi as a teaching method – That beingso, the appellants were justified in not accepting the candidatureof Respondent No.1 and the Tribunal as well as the High Courtwere in error in granting relief to Respondent No.1 – Service Law.

Interpretation of Statutes – Principle of harmoniousconstruction – Primacy given to, and application of special law asagainst general law – Held: If a special provision is made on acertain matter, that matter is excluded from general provision – Thisprinciple is fully applicable to the Karnataka Education DepartmentServices Rules which has carved out a special set of eligibility

909

A

B

CDEF

G

H

Arequirements for a Hindi Language Assistant and there is nochallenge to such a specific requirement – Karnataka EducationDepartment Services (Department of Public Instructions)(Recruitment) (Amendment) Rules, 2002.

Allowing the appeal, the CourtB

HELD: 1. Both the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal aswell as the High Court were in error and took a rather narrowand restricted view of the eligibility criteria. [Para 9] [913-D]

2. There is no doubt that under the Karnataka EducationDepartment Services (Department of Public Instructions)C(Recruitment) (Amendment) Rules, 2002, a Bachelor’s Degreein Arts in the concerned language is a pre-requisite as also aB.Ed Degree but as far as a Hindi Language Assistant isconcerned, the eligibility criterion for that post has been singledout with other requirements. The Recruitment Rules make aspecific category for a Hindi Language Assistant by requiring aDcandidate to not only hold a Bachelor’s Degree but hold such adegree with Hindi as a major subject and not only as an optionalsubject. The additional requirement under the Recruitment Rulesis that the candidate must hold a degree in Education with theconcerned subject (Hindi) as a teaching method. In other words,Ethe requirement for a Hindi Language Assistant is much stricterthan it is for any other language such as Kannada, Marathi, Telugu,Tamil etc. Essentially, the Recruitment Rules have carved out aspecial set of requirements for a Hindi Language Assistant andthere is no challenge to such a specific requirement. [Para 10][913-E-G]F

3. It is well settled that if a special provision is made on acertain matter, that matter is excluded from the general provision.This principle is fully applicable to The Karnataka EducationDepartment Services (Department of Public Instructions)(Recruitment) (Amendment) Rules, 2002 and the provisionGrelating to the post of a Hindi Language Assistant. [Para 12][914-D]

4. The undisputed facts are that although Respondent No.1does have a Bachelor’s Degree with Hindi as a major subject,but he does not have a B.Ed with Hindi as a teaching method.HThat being so, the appellants were justified in not accepting the candidature of Respondent No.1 and the Karnataka AdministrativeTribunal as well as the High Court were in error in granting reliefto Respondent No.1. [Para 13] [914-E]

Independent Thought v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC800 ; Atma Ram Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. The OrientalInsurance Co. Ltd.2017 SCC OnLine SC 1424 ;St. Stephen’s College v. University of Delhi (1992) 1SCC 558 : [1991] 3 Suppl. SCR 121 – referred to.

Case Law Reference

(2017) 10 SCC 800 referred to

Para 11

[1991] 3 Suppl. SCR 121 referred to Para 11

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1612of 2018.

From the Judgment and Order dated 09.09.2011 of the High Courtof Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Dharwad in W. P. No. 63822 of 2010.

V. N. Raghupathy, Adv for the Appellants.

Anirudh Sanganeria, Chinmay Deshpande, Ms. Astha Deep,Nicholas Choudhury, Brij Kishor Sah, Shivaji M. Jadhav, S.K. Jain, Advsfor the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MADAN B. LOKUR, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. The appellants are aggrieved by a judgment and order dated9[th] September, 2011 passed by the Division Bench of the KarnatakaHigh Court in Writ Petition No.63822/2010 and Writ Petition No.65517/2010. The controversy in this appeal is narrow and concerns the non-selection of Respondent No.1 (Shankar Baburao Kangralkar) to the postof Hindi Language Assistant in a Government High School in Karnataka.

3. A recruitment notification was issued by the appellants on 30[th]July, 2003 for the appointment of High School Assistant Teacher Grade-2. We are concerned with the appointment of Hindi Language Assistant.In terms of the notification the eligibility criteria was as follows:

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A“In case of Hindi Language Assistant, must be a holder ofBachelor Degree with Hindi as major subject.

AND

Must be holder of degree in Education with the concerned subjector subjects as teaching methods”B

4. Admittedly, Respondent No.1 is a holder of a Bachelor’s Degreewith Hindi as a major subject but does not hold a B.Ed Degree withHindi as a teaching method although he does hold a B.Ed Degree fromKarnataka University. Consequently, even though Respondent No.1 haddone quite well in the selection process, he was not selected on theCground that he did not possess the requisite qualification for appointment.

5. Feeling aggrieved, Respondent No.1 preferred Application No.931 of 2004 before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal challenginghis non-selection. By its judgment and order dated 4[th] December, 2009the Tribunal came to the conclusion that under the Recruitment Rules,Dnamely, The Karnataka Education Department Services (Departmentof Public Instructions) (Recruitment) (Amendment) Rules, 2002 thereare three sets of qualifications postulated for appointment to the post ofLanguage Assistant. Broadly, a Language Assistant must have aBachelor’s Degree in Arts with the concerned language as one of theEoptional subjects and must be the holder of a degree in Education.Secondly, in the case of a Hindi Language Assistant, the candidate mustbe a holder of a Bachelor’s Degree with Hindi as a major subject andmust be the holder of a B.Ed Degree with the concerned subject asteaching methods. Thirdly, a special provision is made for a LanguageAssistant in Hindi in the case of a certain category of candidates. WeFare not concerned with the third category.

6. The Tribunal took the view that as long as Respondent No.1holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Arts with Hindi as a major subject andholds a degree in Education from the Karnataka University, he fulfillsthe eligibility requirement and therefore is entitled to a direction for beingGconsidered for selection as per his merit by removing the last selectedcandidate.

7. Feeling aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, the appellantspreferred a writ petition in the Karnataka High Court and the last selectedcandidate Prakash Kundalik Patil also preferred a writ petition in the H

High Court. Both the writ petitions were heard and dismissed by theHigh Court with the result that Respondent No.1 was required to beconsidered for the post of Language Assistant.

8. The High Court took the view that as long as Respondent No.1holds a Bachelor’s Degree with Hindi as a major subject and a B.EdDegree from Karnataka University, he was entitled to be considered forselection to the post of Language Assistant. The High Court held thatthe primary requirement under the Recruitment Rules was that a candidatefor appointment as a Language Assistant must be a holder of a Bachelor’sDegree in Arts with the concerned language as one of the optional subjectsand must be the holder of degree in Education. Since Respondent No.1satisfied both the requirements, he was entitled to be considered forselection.

9. Feeling aggrieved, the present appeal has been preferred bythe State of Karnataka. Prakash Kundalik Patil has not preferred anyappeal in this Court. In our opinion, both the Karnataka AdministrativeTribunal as well as the High Court were in error and took a rather narrowand restricted view of the eligibility criteria.

10. There is no doubt that under the Recruitment Rules aBachelor’s Degree in Arts in the concerned language is a pre-requisiteas also a B.Ed Degree but as far as a Hindi Language Assistant isconcerned, the eligibility criterion for that post has been singled out withother requirements. The Recruitment Rules make a specific categoryfor a Hindi Language Assistant by requiring a candidate to not only holda Bachelor’s Degree but hold such a degree with Hindi as a major subjectand not only as an optional subject. The additional requirement under theRecruitment Rules is that the candidate must hold a degree in Educationwith the concerned subject (Hindi) as a teaching method. In other words,the requirement for a Hindi Language Assistant is much stricter than itis for any other language such as Kannada, Marathi, Telugu, Tamil etc.Essentially, the Recruitment Rules have carved out a special set ofrequirements for a Hindi Language Assistant and there is no challengeto such a specific requirement.

11. Recently, in Independent Thought v. Union of India[1] wehave discussed the primacy given to and the application of a special lawas against a general law from paragraph 95 onwards of the Report.

ABC

DEF

G

H

AMore recently in Atma Ram Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. The OrientalInsurance Co. Ltd.[2] a reference was made to the following passagefrom St. Stephen’s College v. University of Delhi[3] (1992) 1 SCC 558wherein it was held:

“140. … The golden rule of interpretation is that words should beBread in the ordinary, natural and grammatical meaning and theprinciple of harmonious construction merely applies the rule thatwhere there is a general provision of law dealing with a subject,and a special provision dealing with the same subject, the specialprevails over the general. If it is not constructed in that way theresult would be that the special provision would be whollyCdefeated.”

12. Clearly therefore, it is well settled that if a special provision ismade on a certain matter, that matter is excluded from the generalprovision. This principle is fully applicable to The Karnataka EducationDepartment Services (Department of Public Instructions) (Recruitment)D(Amendment) Rules, 2002 and the provision relating to the post of aHindi Language Assistant.

13. The undisputed facts are that although Respondent No.1 doeshave a Bachelor’s Degree with Hindi as a major subject, but he does nothave a B.Ed with Hindi as a teaching method. That being so, the appellantsEwere justified in not accepting the candidature of Respondent No.1 andthe Karnataka Administrative Tribunal as well as the High Court werein error in granting relief to Respondent No.1.

14. The appeal is allowed in the above circumstances but with noorder as to costs.F

Ankit Gyan

Appeal allowed.

G

H

22017 SCC OnLine SC 1424

3 (1992) 1 SCC 558