Holding

The notification is valid because the applicable recruitment rules require only a master's degree in Home Science and do not prescribe a subject‑wise breakup of specialisations.

Summary

The Karnataka Public Service Commission issued a notification on 24 December 2007 to recruit 18 Home Science lecturers in government first‑grade colleges. Two successful candidates and the State of Karnataka challenged the notification, arguing that it failed to specify the subject‑wise specialisations within Home Science, as required by the 1993 Special Recruitment Rules. The Karnataka Administrative Tribunal quashed the notification, and the High Court upheld that decision. The Supreme Court examined the relevant recruitment rules and held that the rules only require a master's degree in Home Science, without mandating a subject‑wise breakup, and that Home Science itself is a recognised subject for undergraduate teaching. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal and High Court orders, affirmed the validity of the notification, and upheld the appointments.

Issues considered

Whether the recruitment notification for Home Science lecturers must specify subject‑wise specialisations as mandated by the Karnataka Education Department Service (Special Recruitment) Rules, 1993.
Whether the lack of such a breakup renders the notification illegal and subject to quashing.

Legislation cited

Subjects

Service LawRecruitmentAppointment to the post of lecturersSubject categoriesBeneficial effect of the ruleConsonance of advertisement with Rules

Judgment

[2024] 2 S.C.R. 713 : 2024 INSC 137

Smt. Vidya K. & Ors.
v.
State of Karnataka & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 2899-2907 of 2024)
22 February 2024
[Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha,* and Aravind Kumar, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Whether a notification for filling up 18 posts of lecturers of Home
Science in First Grade College run by State of Karnataka is liable
to be quashed for not providing the breakup of the ‘subjects’ within
Home Science.

Headnotes
Karnataka Education Department Service (Department of
Collegiate Education) (Recruitment) Rules, 1964, and the
Karnataka Education Department Service (Department of
Collegiate Education) (Special Recruitment) Rules, 1993 –
Recruitment – Notification inviting application for the posts of
lecturers of Home Science – Respondent no. 8 approached the
Tribunal seeking quashing of the notification on the ground that
the breakup of the specialised subjects within Home Science
are not specified in the notification – The Tribunal quashed
the notification on the ground that specifying the subject
categories is necessary for advertising the vacant posts –
High Court confirmed the order of the Tribunal – Propriety:
Held: The advertisement dated 24.12.2007 refers to the relevant
Rules, and in fact, specifies all the requirements such as eligibility
criteria, selection methods, educational qualifications, age limit
etc. – There is no dispute about the fact that the recruitment inter
alia is to the post of a lecturer in an undergraduate program in
Government First Grade Colleges – In fact, Rule 3 of the 1993
Rules provides qualifications which concerns appointment to the
post of lecturers in undergraduate programs – The reason for
emphasising the Rule position is to indicate that these lecturers,
upon appointment, would be teaching undergraduate students in
the Home Science department – The qualification is therefore,
confined to, a postgraduation degree in Home Science – As long
as a candidate holds a master’s degree in Home Science, he/she
* Author
714 [2024] 2 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

will be qualified for applying to the post – It does not matter in which
speciality within Home Science the master’s degree is obtained –
Appointments to these posts are in the nature of ‘status’, which
means that the service and its conditions can be unilaterally changed
by the amendment of the Rules – The first duty of the Tribunal is
to verify and examine the claims made by a party in the context
of the Rule that governs the field – If the Rule does not prescribe
a subject-wise speciality, there is no justification for the Tribunal
or the High Court to examine the propriety, or for that matter, the
beneficial effect of the rule – Thus, the High Court committed an
error in not focussing on what the Rule provides for and whether the
advertisement is in consonance with the Rule – If the High Court
had confined itself to the basic features of judicial review, it would
have avoided committing the error that it did. [Paras 8, 9, 10, 12, 17]
Jurisprudence – Service Jurisprudence – Importance of Rules:
Held: Service jurisprudence must begin and end with rules
that govern the process of qualification, recruitment, selection,
appointment and conditions of service. [Para 12]

List of Acts
Karnataka Education Department Service (Department of Collegiate
Education) (Recruitment) Rules, 1964; Karnataka Education
Department Service (Department of Collegiate Education) (Special
Recruitment) Rules, 1993.

List of Keywords
Service Law; Recruitment; Appointment to the post of lecturers;
Subject categories; Beneficial effect of the rule; Consonance of
advertisement with Rules.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 2899-2907
of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.03.2013 of the High Court of
Karnataka at Bengaluru in CMWP Nos. 19495, 19496,19497, 19498,
19499, 19500, 19501, 19502 and 19503 of 2009
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 2936-2954, 2908-2916, 2917-2935 and 2955-2963
of 2024
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 715

Smt. Vidya K. & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.

Appearances for Parties
Aman Panwar, A.A.G., V. Lakshminarayana, Sr. Adv., Dinesh Kumar
Garg, Pratham Narendrakumar, Dhananjay Garg, Abhishek Garg,
Sparsha Shetty, Ishaan Tiwari, R.P. Bansal, Shekhar G Devasa,
Manish Tiwari, Ms. Thashmitha Muthanna, Shashi Bhushan Nagar,
Vishwanath Chaturvedi, M/S. Devasa & Co., G.V.Chandrashekar, Ms.
Anjana Chandrashekar, Anup Jain, Ms. K. V. Bharathi Upadhyaya,
Arjun Harkauli, Bimlesh Kumar Singh, Rajeev Kumar Gupta, Kanwal
Chaudhary, Ms. Niharika, Santosh Kumar Yadav, Neeraj Agarwal,
V. N. Raghupathy, Manendra Pal Gupta, Shivam Singh Baghel,
Anil Jaryal Thakur, K. K. Mani, Phatick Chandra Das, Advs. for the
appearing Parties.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment
Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.
1. Leave Granted.
2. The short question arising for our consideration is whether a
notification for filling up 18 posts of lecturers of Home Science in
First Grade College run by State of Karnataka is liable to be quashed
for not providing the breakup of the ‘subjects’ within Home Science.
The Karnataka Administrative Tribunal quashed the notification on
the ground that specifying the subject categories is necessary for
advertising the vacant posts1. Writ Petitions2 filed by the Karnataka
Public Service Commission as well as the successful candidates were
dismissed by the High Court confirming the order of the Tribunal.
Thus, the present appeal.
3. Having examined the rules and regulations which govern the process
of recruitment, we found no difficulty in arriving at the conclusion
that the requirement, as assumed by the Tribunal and the High
Court, is not a mandate of the recruitment Rules. Even otherwise,
the Tribunal and the High Court have erroneously based their

1 Order dated 12.06.2009 passed in Application No. 1002/2008 and Application No. 2794/2008 by the
Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore.
2 Judgment dated 28.03.2013 passed in W.P. Nos. 19495-503/2009 and W.P. Nos. 20289-20297/2009
connected with W.P. No. 21474/2009 (S-KAT).
716 [2024] 2 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

conclusions on policy considerations relating to how such a breakup
would be beneficial to the candidates. For the reasons to follow, we
have allowed the appeals, set-aside the judgments and upheld the
recruitment process. Consequently, appointments made on the basis
of the advertisement are affirmed.
4. The short facts leading to the present appeal are as follows. The
Karnataka Public Service Commission (hereinafter ‘KPSC’) issued a
notification on 24.12.2007 for filling up approximately 2500 posts of
lecturers in the Government First Grade Colleges. Of the said posts,
we are concerned with the recruitment to 18 posts in the department
of Home Science. Following the advertisement, the appellants in the
lead matter and two other connected matters, having the required
qualification, were selected to the post of Home Science lecturer
on 23.09.2008. In the meanwhile, respondent no. 8 approached the
Tribunal seeking quashing of the notification by filing an Application
on the ground that the breakup of the specialised subjects within
Home Science are not specified in the notification. There was no
interim order passed by the Tribunal, but the recruitment was made
subject to the outcome of the Application.
5. The Application was finally taken up for hearing and the Tribunal
by its order dated 12.06.2009 allowed the same and quashed the
advertisement dated 24.12.2007. The Tribunal held that – (i) Home
Science is not a subject, but a course which comprises of different
subjects; (ii) in the past, KPSC had released notifications specifying
vacancies against each specialisation, and appointments were also
made after notifying vacancies against each specialisation; and (iii) if
posts are not filled up subject-wise, and a lecturer possessing degree
in Home Science in a particular subject is made to teach students in
another subject, the education of the students would suffer.
6. Questioning the legality and validity of the Tribunal’s decision, the
appellants, who were successfully appointed candidates and KPSC
filed Writ Petitions before the High Court. By the order impugned
herein, the High Court dismissed the said Petitions. The reasoning of
the High Court is that – (i) though the notification dated 24.12.2007
specifies subjects within the field of Arts and Science, for Home
Science, no subjects or specialisations were mentioned; (ii) the
Karnataka Education Department Service (Department of Collegiate
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 717

Smt. Vidya K. & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.

Education) (Special Recruitment) Rules, 1993, require that the
vacancy must be specified subject wise which was not done for
Home Science; and (iii) if any student wants to take up specialised
subjects in his masters’ degree, he is required to have studied that
subject, and therefore providing the breakup of subjects within Home
Science is necessary.
7. The appeals before us are by the appointed candidates, the State
of Karnataka and the KPSC. We have heard all the counsels for the
appellants and the respondents.
8. The issue as to whether the notification calling for applications
for recruitment to the 18 posts of lecturers in the department of
Home Science is illegal for not providing the subject wise specified
categories, would depend upon the Rules governing the recruitment
process, which are the Karnataka Education Department Service
(Department of Collegiate Education) (Recruitment) Rules, 1964,
and the Karnataka Education Department Service (Department of
Collegiate Education) (Special Recruitment) Rules, 1993. Rules 3
and 4 of the 1993 Rules provide as follows: -
“3. Qualification and Age - No person shall be eligible for
recruitment under these rules unless he, has –
(a) (i) Obtained a Master’s Degree in the relevant subject with
at least 55 per cent marks or its equivalent grade;
(ii) been, declared successful in the National Education
Test”, provided further that candidates possessing Ph.D/M.
Phil. are exempted from appearing for NET.
(b) ...
4. Notification of vacancies - Appointing Authority shall
notify the vacancies under each subject to the Karnataka
Public Service Commission which shall make the selection
in accordance with these rules.”
9. The advertisement dated 24.12.2007 refers to the relevant Rules,
and in fact, specifies all the requirements such as eligibility criteria,
selection methods, educational qualifications, age limit etc. Under
the educational qualification, the notification, which is in consonance
with Rule 3 stated above, specifies as under: -
718 [2024] 2 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

“1. Must be a holder of a Master’s Degree in the concerned
subject with minimum of fifty five percent of marks. Provided
that in the respect of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled
Tribes candidates the minimum marks shall be fifty percent.
2. Must have passed National Eligibility test conducted
by the U.G.C. or C.S.I.R of SLET conducted by the State
Government or any authority accredited by the U.G.C.”
10. There is no dispute about the fact that the recruitment inter alia is to
the post of a lecturer in an undergraduate program in Government
First Grade Colleges. That, it is a lecturer post, is also evident from
the pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500 that it carries. In fact, Rule 3 of
the 1993 Rules provides qualifications which concerns appointment
to the post of lecturers in undergraduate programs. The reason for
emphasising the Rule position is to indicate that these lecturers,
upon appointment, would be teaching undergraduate students in the
Home Science department. The qualification is therefore, confined to,
a post-graduation degree in Home Science. As long as a candidate
holds a master’s degree in Home Science, he/she will be qualified
for applying to the post. It does not matter in which speciality within
Home Science the master’s degree is obtained.
11. We may conclude this issue by referring to a statement made by
the University Grants Commission (hereinafter ‘UGC’) in the affidavit
which is to the following effect: -
“12. That the present Special Leave Petition pertains to the
issue as to “whether the post of lecturer in Home Science
is required to be classified subject-wise or not”.
13. In this regard, it is already submitted on behalf of
UGC that there is no separate subject wise provision for
the post of lecturers Home Science.”
12. Service jurisprudence must begin and end with rules that govern
the process of qualification, recruitment, selection, appointment and
conditions of service. Appointments to these posts are in the nature
of ‘status’, which means that the service and its conditions can be
unilaterally changed by the amendment of the Rules. The first duty
of the Tribunal is to verify and examine the claims made by a party
in the context of the Rule that governs the field. If the Rule does
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 719

Smt. Vidya K. & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.

not prescribe a subject-wise speciality, there is no justification for
the Tribunal or the High Court to examine the propriety, or for that
matter, the beneficial effect of the rule.
13. The reasoning adopted by the High Court is as follows:
“14. The material on record discloses that all persons
who have basic degree in Science is not eligible for being
admitted to M.Sc. in Home Science. If any student wants
to take up specialized subject, he also should have studied
that subject as a subject in the basic degree. Under these
circumstances, though the Government had asked the
KPSC to recruit 18 Lecturers in Home Science, the KPSC
being specialized Agency should have known that while
inviting applications, mentioning of mere Home Science
would not be sufficient. In fact, the Rules on which reliance
is placed categorically states that the candidate should
have obtained a Master Degree in the ‘relevant subject’
with at least 55% marks or its equivalent grade and the
Amended Rule (4) makes it very clear that the Appointing
Authority shall notify the vacancies under ‘each subject’
to the KPSC which shall make selection in accordance
with these Rules. Home Science is not a subject. Home
Science is a stream or genesis. In that view of the matter,
the notification calling for applications in Home Science is
vague. Only the specialized subject has to be mentioned
as they have mentioned in the case of Arts, Science and
Commerce. The candidate possessing M.Sc. in Home
Science with specialized subject is in disadvantageous
position to apply as against the said vacancies. In their
anxiety, if the applicant had applied for the post of Lecturer
in Home Science, that cannot be held against her. The
State and the KPSC should act in accordance with law.”
14. It does not require detailed reasoning to find the error in the judgment
of the High Court. The fact that an undergraduate student would
be required to choose a specialisation when he takes up a PG
program has no bearing on the qualification of the lecturer teaching
the undergraduate students. Further, the assumption of the High
Court that Home Science is not a subject, instead it is a stream, or
720 [2024] 2 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

a genesis has no application to the recruitment of lecturers for an
undergraduate program. For under-graduation, Home Science in
itself is the subject. In fact, UGC also considers Home Science as a
subject, with subject code no. 12, as per the latest information bulletin
issued by it towards National Eligibility Test conducted in December,
2023. To teach undergraduates, the qualification prescribed is simply
a post-graduation degree in the subject of Home Science. We repeat,
it does not matter in which subject of Home Science that the post-
graduation is obtained.
15. The other reasoning given by the High Court is that on an earlier
occasion, the KPSC, while recruiting for the post of probationary
officers in the Dept. of Woman & Child Welfare, had mentioned
the qualification as Master’s Degree in Social Works or Home
Science with a specialization in Child Development or Nutrition.
Even this reasoning is misplaced because this advertisement was
for recruitment to an executive post. While recruiting a person as
a probationary officer in the Dept. of Woman & Child Welfare, the
employer is certainly entitled to indicate the specialisation that is
expected. This has nothing to do with advertisement for recruitment
for the post of a lecturer.
16. Till date, the lecturers of Home Science in undergraduate program
run by the Government First Grade Colleges have been treated as
one cadre and recruitment to the posts were advertised as such. If
one has to follow the logic adopted by the High Court, then the entire
notification will collapse as the subjects of History, Economics, Political
Science, Sociology etc. are also mentioned without the so-called
specialisations and they must be set aside by the same logic. For
example, History has its specialised subjects in post-graduation such
as Ancient History, Archaeology, Epigraphy, Modern Indian History,
World History, European History, South-east Asian History, West
Asian History etc. The simple answer is that for under graduation,
History is a subject in itself.
17. We conclude by holding that the High Court committed an error
in not focussing on what the Rule provides for and whether the
advertisement is in consonance with the Rule. If the High Court had
confined itself to the basic features of judicial review, it would have
avoided committing the error that it did.
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 721

Smt. Vidya K. & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.

18. For the reasons stated above, we allow the appeals and set aside the
judgement of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in W.P. Nos.
19495-19503/2009, W.P. Nos. 20289-20297/2009 connected with
W.P. No. 21474/2009 (S-KAT) dated 28.03.2013 and the order dated
12.06.2009 passed in Application No. 1002/2008 and Application
No. 2794/2008 by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
19. No order as to costs.

Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan Result of the case:
Appeals allowed.