Supreme Court Rules on Reservation in Solitary Teaching Posts: Karnataka Lecturer Case

On November 28, 2019, the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant ruling in R R Inamdar vs. State of Karnataka & Others, addressing the issue of reservation in solitary posts within educational institutions. The case revolved around the appointment of a Lecturer in English at Sri Jagadaguru Annadaneshwari High School, Karnataka, and whether a single teaching post could be reserved under the State’s roster system. The Court upheld the Karnataka High Court’s decision that a single post cannot be subject to reservation and directed the state to consider alternative remedies for the affected appellant.

Background of the Case

The case originated from a dispute over the appointment of an English Lecturer in a Karnataka school. The appellant, R R Inamdar, belonging to a Scheduled Caste, was appointed to the post based on roster points after the retirement of the previous lecturer. However, the fifth respondent, who was senior to the appellant, challenged the appointment, arguing that a single post in a discipline could not be reserved under the law.

The Karnataka High Court ruled in favor of the respondent, holding that:

• The post of Lecturer in English was a solitary post and thus could not be reserved under Article 16(4) of the Constitution.
• Appointments should be made based on seniority rather than reservation in such cases.
• The appellant’s appointment was invalid, and the respondent had a legitimate claim to the post.

Legal Issues

The case presented a fundamental question: Can a solitary post in an educational institution be reserved under the government’s roster system? The Court examined whether such reservations violated constitutional provisions and past precedents.

Arguments Presented

Appellant’s Arguments (R R Inamdar)

• The Karnataka government’s circular dated May 31, 1991, allowed for roster-based appointments at the unit level rather than subject-wise.
• The post was filled following the reservation system applicable in Karnataka, and rejecting it would contradict the state’s policy.
• The appointment was approved by the Director of Pre-University Education and should not have been overturned.
• Alternative solutions, such as creating an additional post, should be considered instead of removing the appellant.

Respondent’s Arguments (State of Karnataka & Others)

• A single post cannot be reserved as it would violate the 50% reservation ceiling established in prior judgments.
• The High Court correctly applied the precedent set in State of Karnataka vs. K Govindappa (2009) 1 SCC 1, which ruled that solitary posts in a discipline could not be reserved.
• The appellant’s appointment violated the fundamental principle that reservation should apply only where there is a plurality of posts.
• The government’s circular could not override constitutional principles and Supreme Court rulings.

Supreme Court’s Observations and Ruling

The Supreme Court examined the constitutional framework and past precedents before ruling against the appellant. The key observations included:

• Applicability of Reservation: The Court reaffirmed that reservation could not apply to solitary posts, following the precedent set in Dr. Chakradhar Paswan vs. State of Bihar (1988) 2 SCC 214 and Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research vs. Faculty Association (1998) 4 SCC 1.
• Violation of Article 16(4): The Court ruled that reserving a single post would lead to a 100% reservation, which was unconstitutional.
• Relying on Prior Decisions: The Court cited State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Bharat Singh (2011) 4 SCC 120, where it held that reservation should not be applied to solitary teaching posts in government-aided institutions.
• Seniority Principle: The Court ruled that since the respondent was senior to the appellant, the appointment should have been based on merit and seniority rather than reservation.

The Supreme Court concluded:

“If the rule of reservation is to be applied to a single post, it will offend the constitutional bar against 100% reservation as envisaged in Article 16(1) of the Constitution.”

Alternative Remedies Suggested by the Court

Although the Court upheld the Karnataka High Court’s ruling, it acknowledged the appellant’s prolonged service since 2002 and suggested alternative solutions:

• The State of Karnataka should reconsider the school management’s request to create an additional post for the appellant.
• If a new post could not be created under existing rules, the government should explore creating a supernumerary post to accommodate the appellant.
• The appellant should not be required to refund any salary received during service.
• The fifth respondent’s salary should be fixed notionally to ensure fair compensation upon retirement.

Final Judgment

• The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Karnataka High Court’s ruling.
• The State of Karnataka was directed to consider creating an additional or supernumerary post for the appellant.
• The respondent’s rights were restored, and the High Court’s directive for promotion was to be implemented.

Implications of the Judgment

The judgment sets a clear precedent on the issue of reservation in solitary posts, emphasizing the following principles:

• No reservation in single posts: Applying reservation to a single post would violate Article 16 of the Constitution.
• Seniority and merit should prevail: In cases involving solitary posts, seniority should be the deciding factor.
• Government circulars cannot override constitutional principles: Policy documents must align with Supreme Court rulings.
• Supernumerary posts as a remedy: In cases where an affected candidate has served for a long time, a temporary additional post can be considered.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in R R Inamdar vs. State of Karnataka & Others reaffirms the constitutional limitations on reservation policies in government jobs. While the ruling ensures that solitary posts are not unfairly reserved, it also provides an equitable solution for candidates who have already been appointed under such policies. The verdict serves as a guiding precedent for future cases dealing with reservations in single teaching posts across India.

Petitioner Name: R R Inamdar.
Respondent Name: State of Karnataka & Others.
Judgment By: Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice Ajay Rastogi.
Place Of Incident: Karnataka.
Judgment Date: 28-11-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: R R Inamdar vs State of Karnataka & Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 28-11-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Promotion Cases
See all petitions in Recruitment Policies
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Judgment by Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud
See all petitions in Judgment by Ajay Rastogi
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments November 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category