SRI C. NAGARAJA AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ADDITIONAL SECRETARY HOME AND TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petitions are filed seeking quashing of the order dated 13.3.2013 in Application No. 8965/2003 c/w. Application Nos. 8966 -8973/2003 passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal. The petitioners in WP. Nos. 23295 & 29068 -29080 & 29351/2013 and in WP. Nos. 23669 -23672/2013 (hereinafter referred to as the 'private petitioners') were working as Police Constables and Head Constables in the year 2003. The Government of Karnataka framed and published in its gazette dated 7.4.2003 the Rules called 'Karnataka State Police Service (Recruitment of Sub -Inspectors)(Special) Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Special Rules' for short). The Special Rules were made for filling up of 200 direct recruitment vacancies in the cadre of Sub -Inspector of Police (Civil) in the Karnataka State Police Services. Pursuant to such Special Rules, the Government of Karnataka issued recruitment notification, dated 7.4.2003 gazetted in Special Gazette dated 2.5.2003 in connection with recruitment of 200 posts of Sub -Inspector of Police (Civil). The said notification has also specified the procedure for recruitment as well as classification of the posts and reservation to be made horizontally as well as vertically. Pursuant to the said notification dated 2.5.2003,, the private petitioners as well as private respondents applied and participated in the recruitment process which included written test also. The written test, viva -voce as well as physical test were conducted as per the Special Rules. A final list of selected candidates was published on 28.10.2003 on the basis of marks secured in the written test. All the private petitioners (19 in numbers) and other 181 candidates were selected and appointed as Sub -Inspectors of Police. Since then, the private petitioners are working as Sub -Inspectors of Police.

(2.) THE private respondents challenged the selection and appointment of the private petitioners before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in Application Nos. 8965/2003 and 8966 -8973/2003. The Tribunal by the impugned order held that horizontal reservation provided in the notification dated 7.4.2003 was not legally valid as it is inconsistent with the Special Rules, and consequently horizontal reservation provided under the recruitment notification held to be bad in the eye of law. The Tribunal has further held that the selection of those candidates claiming horizontal reservation without considering the claims of the applicants before the Tribunal and similarly placed candidates was not legally correct and it needs to be revised. Consequently the selection authority is directed to re -do the selection excluding the candidates who have been selected by applying horizontal reservation. Consequential orders are also made. The contention of the private respondents (applicants before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal) that though the Special Rules do not provide for horizontal reservation, the recruitment notification dated 7.4.2003, gazetted on 2.5.2003 has provided horizontal reservation contrary to the Special Rules, is accepted by the Tribunal.

(3.) SRI Rajagopal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting/private respondents submitted that the Tribunal is justified in concluding that it is not a case of direct recruitment, but it is a case of promotion by selection from among the in -service candidates; the law does not recognize horizontal reservation while selecting for certain posts from in -service candidates; though the Special Rules mention that those Rules are made to fill up 200 posts of Sub -Inspectors of Police (Civil) from among the in -service candidates, the recruitment to be made was not a direct recruitment, but it was a case of accelerated promotion through departmental examination from among the in -service candidates. He further submitted that Rule 9 of the General Recruitment Rules deals with horizontal reservation and the same is available only for direct recruitment and not for promotions; Rule 9 cannot be read into Rule 8 (in respect of vertical reservation); since the Special Rules, more particularly, Rules 7(d) and 7(e) of the Special Rules clearly depict that confidential reports shall be taken into consideration and that sealed cover procedure is to be adopted, it is amply clear that the selections made are not by way of direct recruitment and they are virtually the promotions based on merit, i.e., accelerated promotion based on the departmental examination. On these among other grounds, he prays for dismissal of the writ petitions.