The State Of Karnataka vs Mr. Shankar Baburao Kangralkar .

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO._1612_/2018 (ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (CIVIL) NO.11404 OF 2013)

The State of Karnataka & Ors. …Appellants

versus

Shankar Baburao Kangralkar & Anr. …Respondents

JUDGMENT

Madan B. Lokur, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellants are aggrieved by a judgment and order dated

9th September, 2011 passed by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High

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 post of Hindi

Language Assistant in a Government High School in Karnataka.

3. A recruitment notification was issued by the appellants on 30th July, Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SANJAY KUMAR 2003 for the appointment of High School Assistant Teacher Grade-2. Date: 2018.02.06 23:32:03 IST Reason:

We are concerned with the appointment of Hindi Language Assistant. In

C.A. No.1612/2018 (@ S.L.P. (C) No.11404 of 2013) Page 1 of 6 terms of the notification the eligibility criteria was as follows:

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

AND

Must be holder of degree in Education with the concerned subject or subjects as teaching methods”

4. Admittedly, Respondent No.1 is a holder of a Bachelor’s Degree

with Hindi as a major subject but does not hold a B.Ed Degree with

Hindi as a teaching method although he does hold a B.Ed Degree from

Karnataka University. Consequently, even though Respondent No.1 had

done quite well in the selection process, he was not selected on the

ground 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 challenging his

non-selection. By its judgment and order dated 4th December, 2009 the

Tribunal came to the conclusion that under the Recruitment Rules,

namely, The Karnataka Education Department Services (Department of

Public Instructions) (Recruitment) (Amendment) Rules, 2002 there are

three sets of qualifications postulated for appointment to the post of

Language Assistant. Broadly, a Language Assistant must have a

Bachelor’s Degree in Arts with the concerned language as one of the

optional subjects and must be the holder of a degree in Education.

C.A. No.1612/2018 (@ S.L.P. (C) No.11404 of 2013) Page 2 of 6 Secondly, in the case of a Hindi Language Assistant, the candidate must

be a holder of a Bachelor’s Degree with Hindi as a major subject and

must be the holder of a B.Ed Degree with the concerned subject as

teaching methods. Thirdly, a special provision is made for a Language

Assistant in Hindi in the case of a certain category of candidates. We are

not concerned with the third category.

6. The Tribunal took the view that as long as Respondent No.1 holds

a Bachelor’s Degree in Arts with Hindi as a major subject and holds a

degree in Education from the Karnataka University, he fulfills the

eligibility requirement and therefore is entitled to a direction for being

considered for selection as per his merit by removing the last selected

candidate.

7. Feeling aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, the appellants

preferred a writ petition in the Karnataka High Court and the last selected

candidate Prakash Kundalik Patil also preferred a writ petition in the

High Court. Both the writ petitions were heard and dismissed by the High

Court with the result that Respondent No.1 was required to be considered

for the post of Language Assistant.

8. The High Court took the view that as long as Respondent No.1

holds a Bachelor’s Degree with Hindi as a major subject and a B.Ed

Degree from Karnataka University, he was entitled to be considered for

selection to the post of Language Assistant. The High Court held that the

C.A. No.1612/2018 (@ S.L.P. (C) No.11404 of 2013) Page 3 of 6 primary requirement under the Recruitment Rules was that a candidate

for appointment as a Language Assistant must be a holder of a Bachelor’s

Degree in Arts with the concerned language as one of the optional

subjects and must be the holder of degree in Education. Since Respondent

No.1 satisfied both the requirements, he was entitled to be considered for

selection.

9. Feeling aggrieved, the present appeal has been preferred by the

State of Karnataka. Prakash Kundalik Patil has not preferred any appeal

in this Court. In our opinion, both the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal

as well as the High Court were in error and took a rather narrow and

restricted view of the eligibility criteria.

10. There is no doubt that under the Recruitment Rules a Bachelor’s

Degree in Arts in the concerned language is a pre-requisite as also a B.Ed

Degree but as far as a Hindi Language Assistant is concerned, the

eligibility criterion for that post has been singled out with other

requirements. The Recruitment Rules make a specific category for a

Hindi Language Assistant by requiring a candidate to not only hold a

Bachelor’s Degree but hold such a degree with Hindi as a major subject

and not only as an optional subject. The additional requirement under the

Recruitment Rules is that the candidate must hold a degree in Education

with the concerned subject (Hindi) as a teaching method. In other words,

the requirement for a Hindi Language Assistant is much stricter than it is

C.A. No.1612/2018 (@ S.L.P. (C) No.11404 of 2013) Page 4 of 6 for any other language such as Kannada, Marathi, Telugu, Tamil etc.

Essentially, the Recruitment Rules have carved out a special set of

requirements for a Hindi Language Assistant and there is no challenge to

such a specific requirement.

11. Recently, in Independent Thought v. Union of India1 we have

discussed the primacy given to and the application of a special law as

against a general law from paragraph 95 onwards of the Report. More

recently in Atma Ram Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. The Oriental Insurance

Co. Ltd.2 a reference was made to the following passage from St.

Stephen's College v. University of Delhi3 wherein it was held:

“140. … The golden rule of interpretation is that words should be read in the ordinary, natural and grammatical meaning and the principle of harmonious construction merely applies the rule that where there is a general provision of law dealing with a subject, and a special provision dealing with the same subject, the special prevails over the general. If it is not constructed in that way the result would be that the special provision would be wholly defeated.”

12. Clearly therefore, it is well settled that if a special provision is

made on a certain matter, that matter is excluded from the general

provision. This principle is fully applicable to The Karnataka Education

Department Services (Department of Public Instructions) (Recruitment)

(Amendment) Rules, 2002 and the provision relating to the post of a

Hindi Language Assistant.

1 (2017) 10 SCC 800 2 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1424 3 (1992) 1 SCC 558

C.A. No.1612/2018 (@ S.L.P. (C) No.11404 of 2013) Page 5 of 6

13. The undisputed facts are that although Respondent No.1 does 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. That being so, the appellants were

justified in not accepting the candidature of Respondent No.1 and the

Karnataka Administrative Tribunal as well as the High Court were in

error in granting relief to Respondent No.1.

14. The appeal is allowed in the above circumstances but with no order

as to costs.

...……………………J (Madan B. Lokur)

...…………………....J New Delhi; (Deepak Gupta) February 6, 2018

C.A. No.1612/2018 (@ S.L.P. (C) No.11404 of 2013) Page 6 of 6