SC upholds Karnataka HC order in primary teachers' recruitment case, asks KSAT to decide

NEW DELHI: In a significant verdict pertaining to the recruitment of graduate primary teachers in Karnataka, the Supreme Court has dismissed appeals challenging a high court order that had referred the matter to the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT) for decision.

A bench comprising justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi upheld the high court's decision and ruled that the KSAT is the proper forum to address the service-related grievances arising from the recruitment process.

"We are of the considered view that the division bench of the high court has rightly set aside the judgment passed by the single judge and had not committed any illegality in partly allowing the appeals by the first set of appellants (A) and relegating the matter to the KSAT for adjudication. The division bench of the high court had rightly held that their writ petitions before the high court are not maintainable," Justice Vijay Bishnoi, who authored the judgment, said.

Initial disputes

The appeals stemmed from a recruitment notification of the Karnataka Department of Public Education on March 21, 2022, inviting applications for 15,000 posts of graduate primary teachers for classes 6 to 8 across 35 educational districts.

Following written tests held in May 2022, a provisional select list was published on November 18. However, several married women candidates who applied under the OBC category were excluded from the list because they submitted caste-cum-income certificates issued in their fathers’ names instead of those of their husbands.

Their names were instead placed under the general merit list. Aggrieved by the exclusion, some candidates approached the Karnataka High Court seeking inclusion in the OBC category.

Karnataka HC quashes selection list

On January 30, 2023, a single judge bench of the high court allowed their petitions, quashed the provisional select list, and directed the state authorities to treat such candidates as belonging to the OBC category as per the certificates attached to their applications.

Pursuant to the order, the government issued a fresh provisional select list on February 27, 2023, which led to the exclusion of 451 candidates who were originally selected in the earlier list. The final select list was later published on March 8, 2023. Those excluded challenged the new list before a division bench of the high court, which on October 12, 2023, set aside the single judge's order and directed that all issues be taken before KSAT.

Also read Karnataka government announces 3-year age relaxation for civil services recruitment

The division bench also permitted the state government to proceed with appointments from the final select list dated March 8, 2023, subject to verification of valid caste and income certificates. Upholding the division bench's verdict, the top court emphasized that high courts should not entertain writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution in matters that fall squarely within the jurisdiction of service tribunals.

"Where an efficacious alternate remedy is available, the high court should not entertain a writ petition... The facts of the present case do not fall within any exception warranting such maintainability," the top court said.

HC only dealt with maintainability

The verdict said that no vested right accrued to candidates whose names appeared only in the provisional select list of November 18, 2022, and hence their plea for reviving that list was untenable. While dismissing the appeals, it made its interim directions absolute and directed that 500 reserved posts be filled in accordance with the final decision of the KSAT.

"In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is expected that the KSAT shall make every endeavour to decide any application preferred on behalf of the appellants of the second set of appeals (B) pursuant to liberty granted by the division bench of the high court of Karnataka vide impugned judgment, expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date of filing of such application/applications," it said.

The verdict made clear that it has "only dealt with the maintainability of the writ petitions before the High Court and not gone into the merits of the instant case".