CHAITRA NAGAMMANAVAR versus STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 471, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Issues
* Author
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 471 : 2024 INSC 367
Chaitra Nagammanavar 
v. 
State of Karnataka & Ors.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 6772-6773 of 2023)
02 May 2024
[Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha* and Aravind Kumar, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
For the selection in question, whether the Bangalore University was 
bound to comply with the 2001 Rules which was to be the mode/
method of selection as per its advertisement; whether respondent 
No. 7 was entitled to be appointed as per the 2001 Rules; whether 
the aforesaid advertisement issued by the University intending 
to follow the 2001 Rules made under the Karnataka State Civil 
Services Act, 1978 suffered from any illegality.
Headnotes†
Karnataka SCs, STs and OBCs (Reservation of Appointments 
etc.) Act, 1990 – ss.4(1A), 2(2), 2(3)(vi) – Karnataka State 
Civil Services (Unfilled Vacancies Reserved For Persons 
Belonging to the SC’s and ST’s) (Special Recruitment) Rules, 
2001 – Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 – ss.53, 54, 78 – 
Karnataka State Civil Services Act, 1978 – Filling up of backlog 
vacancies of SCs and STs as per the advertisement issued by 
the Bangalore University – Applicability of the 2001 Rules to 
appointments by the University governed by the Universities 
Act, 2000 – Appellant and respondent No.7, both ST candidates 
were eligible for appointment to the solitary post of Assistant 
Professor (English) reserved for a candidate belonging to the 
STs – While the appellant was higher in merit, respondent no.7 
was within
the age bracket of 29-40 years, and thus, a preferential 
candidate under the 2001 Rules which was to be the mode/
method of Selection as per the advertisement – However, the 
university following its own procedure appointed the appellant 
on the basis of merit – High Court held that respondent No.7 is 
entitled to be appointed as per the 2001 Rules – Correctness:
Held: The controversy about filling up backlog vacancies of SCs 
and STs by the university came to an end with the insertion of 
Sec. 4(1A) of the Reservation Act, 1990 – In fact, the provocation
472
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
for introducing sub-Section (1A) was that the mandate of the 2001 
Rules was not followed by the universities – In order to extend 
the provision of the 2001 Rules to universities, sub-Section (1A) 
was introduced – Thus, there was no uncertainty left after the 
introduction of sub-Section (1A) to Sec. 4 of the Reservation Act, 
1990, requiring an establishment, i.e., the university, to take action 
for filling the backlog vacancies as a one-time measure by following 
the method prescribed by the Government – The purpose and object 
of the amendment was amply clear from its statements of objects 
and reasons contemplating the application of the 2001 Rules for 
the universities – The conduct of the university in not responding 
to the categorical demands of the Government to implement the 
2001 Rules is conclusive about its acceptance of the applicable 
law and the policy, and therefore, the advertisement – Hence, the 
requirement of the Government to specify the manner, procedure 
and time for identifying, filling backlog vacancies and completing 
the same was amply clear to the university – It is with this view 
that the university advertised that the ‘Mode of Selection’ shall 
be as per the 2001 Rules – Compliance with the 2001 Rules 
was mandatory  – University was bound to comply with what 
was declared in its advertisement – The 2001 Rules will be the 
guiding principles for the selection in question – High Court
rightly 
held that respondent No. 7 is entitled to be appointed as per the 
2001 Rules – Appeals against impugned judgment dismissed – 
However, the appellant has been working for almost four and a 
half years – University may consider creating a supernumerary 
post to accommodate her. [Paras 16, 17, 20, 22 and 23]
Case Law Cited
Official Liquidator v. Dayanand [2008] 15 SCR 331 : 
(2008) 10 SCC 1; N.T. Bevin Katti v. Karnataka Public 
Service Commission [1990] 2 SCR 239 : (1990) 3 SCC 
157 – referred to.
List of Acts
Karnataka SCs, STs and OBCs (Reservation of Appointments 
etc.) Act, 1990; Karnataka State Civil Services (Unfilled Vacancies 
Reserved For Persons Belonging to the SC’s and ST’s) (Special 
Recruitment) Rules, 2001; Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000; 
Karnataka State Civil Services Act, 1978; UGC Regulations, 2010; 
UGC (4th Amendment) Regulations, 2016.
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
473
Chaitra Nagammanavar v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
List of Keywords
Backlog vacancies; Selection; Appointment; Advertisement issued 
by University; Appointment to solitary post; Assistant Professor; 
Mode/method of Selection as per the advertisement; Appointments 
of teachers by Universities; University bound to comply with the 
advertisement.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 6772-6773 of 
2023
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.03.2021 of the High Court of 
Karnataka at Bengaluru in WA Nos. 233 and 190 of 2021
Appearances for Parties
Shailesh Madiyal, Sr. Advs., Vaibhav Sabharwal, Ms. Divija Mahajan, 
Ms. Sunidhi Hegde, Mrigank Prabhakar, Advs. for the Appellant.
Gagan Gupta, Anand Sanjay M. Nuli, Sr. Advs., Rahmathulla 
Kothwal, Siddika Aisha, Ms. Sara Parveen, Ms. Manju Jetley, D. 
L. Chidananda, Ravindera Kumar Verma, Ishan Roy Chaudhary, 
Shubhranshu Padhi, Suraj Kaushik, Shiva Swaroop, Agam Sharma, 
M/s. Nuli & Nuli, Advs. for the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.
1.	
A routine service dispute involving competing claims for appointment 
was transformed into a pleasurable discourse by the newly designated 
senior advocates of this court, Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Mr. Anand 
Sanjay M. Nuli, Mr. Gagan Gupta. Mr. D.L. Chidananda, appearing 
for the respondent-State rose to the occasion and made crisp, clear 
and categorical arguments to match the submissions made
by the 
senior counsels. 
2.	
The facts, to the extent they are relevant for our consideration, are 
that the Banglore University, constituted under the Karnataka State 
Universities Act, 2000,1 issued an advertisement dated 21.03.2018 
1	
Hereinafter, referred to as the ‘Universities Act’.
474
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
for filling up backlog vacancies to posts reserved for scheduled 
castes (SC’s) and scheduled tribes (ST’s). Of the 34 posts advertised 
for Assistant Professors, one post of Assistant Professor in the 
department of English was reserved for a candidate belonging to 
the ST community. 
3.	
The advertisement provides that qualifications for the post shall 
be as provided under the UGC Regulations, 2010 and the UGC 
(4th Amendment) Regulations, 2016. The ‘Mode of Selection’, or 
the method of selection, as specified in the advertisement, is 
important.2 It is provided that the list of selected candidates will 
be prepared as per the Karnataka State Civil Services (Unfilled 
Vacancies Reserved For Persons Belonging to the SC’s and ST’s) 
(Special Recruitment) Rules, 2001, hereinafter referred to as the 
‘2001 Rules’. Rule 6 of the 2001 Rules provides for a preference 
in favour of candidates between the age bracket of 29 and 40 
years. In other words, amongst the eligible candidates belonging 
to a scheduled tribe, those who fall within the age bracket of 29-
40 years, would have a preferential right to be appointed over and 
above even meritorious candidates.
4.	
The appellant and respondent No. 7 are both ST candidates, and 
both of them were eligible for appointment to the solitary post 
of Assistant Professor in the English department reserved for a 
candidate beloniging to the ST community. While the appellant 
was higher
in merit, respondent no. 7 was within the age bracket 
of 29-40 years, and as such, was a preferential candidate as per 
Rule 6 of the 2001 Rules. Though the university advertised that the 
‘Mode of Selection’ shall be as per the 2001 Rules, it followed its 
own procedure and proceeded to appoint the appellant on the basis 
of merit. Respondent no. 7 naturally challenged the appointment of 
the appellant by filing Writ Petition No. 4923/2020 before the High 
Court of Karnataka. 
5.	
The Ld. Single Judge of the High Court, by a judgment dated 
16.01.2021, allowed the writ petition and set aside the appellant’s 
2	
“MODE OF SELECTION
The list of selected candidates will be prepared as per the following Government of Karnataka 
Notifications:
1.	 No. DPAR 13 SBC 2001 dated: 21.11.2001 & Dated: 01.06.2002
2.	 UGC Regulations 2010, UGC (4th Amendment) Regulations, 2016 and AICTE 2016 Regulations.”
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
475
Chaitra Nagammanavar v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
selection and appointment on the ground that the university specifically 
declared in the advertisement that the ‘Mode of Selection’ shall be 
as per the 2001 Rules. Therefore, its appointment of the appellant, 
who did not fall in the age bracket of 29-40 years, was illegal. 
Consequently, Respondent No. 7, who is the preferential candidate, 
was directed to be appointed. 
6.	
The appellant and the university filed their respective writ appeals, 
namely W.A. 190/2021 and 233/2021, before the Division Bench of 
the High Court. While confirming the order of the Single Judge, the 
Division Bench also directed that respondent No. 7 is entitled to be 
appointed as per the 2001 Rules. Thus, the present Civil Appeal by 
the appellant, who was the originally appointed candidate.
7.	
Before we consider the rival contentions, it is necessary to refer to 
three legislations that have a bearing on the case. The Karnataka 
State Civil Services Act, 19783; the Karnataka SCs, STs and OBCs 
(Reservation of Appointments etc.) Act, 19904; and the Karnataka 
State Universities Act, 20005. Very importantly, we will also consider 
the applicability of the 2001 Rules framed under the Civil Services 
Act, 1978.
8.	
The relevant law governing the filling up of backlog vacancies as per 
the advertisement issued by the university will be the Reservation 
Act, 1990 and the 2001 Rules. These rules are made under the Civil
Services Act, which naturally relates to civil services under the State 
of Karnataka. The applicability of the 2001 Rules to appointments 
by the universities, which is governed by the University Act, is the 
controversy that has led to the present litigation. 
9.	
The Bangalore University is governed by the Karnataka Universities 
Act, 2000. Sec. 536 of this law recognises a ‘Board of Appointment’ 
to be the appointing authority for teachers and other employees of 
the university. Sec. 547 provides that notwhithstanding anything in 
3	
Hereinafter referred to as the Civil Services Act, 1978.
4	
Hereinafter referred to as the Reservation Act, 1990
5	
Hereinafter referred to as the Universities Act, 2000.
6	
“Sec. 53. Appointment of Teachers, Librarians.- (1) There shall be a Board of Appointment for 
selection of persons for appointment as teachers and librarians in the University […]”
7	
“Sec. 54. Appointment in accordance with the promotion schemes.- (1) Notwithstanding anything 
contained in section 53 but subject to the rules and orders of the State Government issued from time 
to time for reservation of appointment and posts for the persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and
476
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Sec. 53, but subject to the rules and orders of the State Government, 
appointments to the posts of professors, readers, principals and 
asst. professors shall be made by the syndicate as per the scheme 
evolved by the UGC. Furthermore, under Sec. 78, the Universities 
Act is given an overriding effect to it over other statutes. 
10.	 Apart from the Universities Act, there is an overarching law, namely, 
the Karnataka SCs, STs and OBCs (Reservation of Appointment etc.) 
Act, 1990. It is intended to provide reservations in favour of SCs, 
STs and other OBCs in the state civil services and ‘establishments’. 
The definitions of ‘establishment’ and ‘appointing authority’ under the 
Reservation Act, 1990 are relevant. Sec. 2(2) and 2(3)(vi) defines 
‘appointing authority’ and ‘establishments in public sector’ as follows: 
“Section 2. Definitions: In the Act, unless the context 
otherwise requires […]
(2) “appointing authority” in relation to a service or posts, 
means the authority empowered to make appointment to 
such service or post;
(3) “establishments in public sector” means,- […]
(vi) a University established or deemed to have been 
established by or under any law of the State Legislature 
[…]”. 
10.1	The most relevant provision in the Reservation Act, 1990 is Sec. 
4 and it is extracted hereinafter for ready reference:-
“ Sec. 4. Reservation of appointments or posts 
etc:- (1) After the appointed day, while making
appointments to any office in a civil service of the 
State of Karnataka or to a civil post under the State 
of Karnataka, appointments or posts shall be reserved 
for the member of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled 
Tribes and other Backward Classes to such extent 
and in such manner as may be specified from time 
Scheduled Tribes under Article 16(4) and 16(4A) of the Constitution, the appointment to the post of 
Professors and Readers, Principals and Assistant Professors in the constituent Engineering Colleges 
and to the post of Principal Grade-I, Principal Grade-II, Lecturer (Selection Grade), Lecturer (Senior 
Scale) in the constituent Engineering Colleges shall be made by the Syndicate in accordance with the 
scheme governing promotions as prescribed by the Statutes adopting the schemes evolved by the 
University Grants Commission or All India Council for Technical Education.[…]”
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
477
Chaitra Nagammanavar v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
to time in the order made by the Government under 
clause 4 of Article 16 of the Constitution of India.” 
(emphasis supplied)
10.2	There was uncertainty about the applicability of the procedure 
contemplated under Sec. 4 of the Reservation Act, 1990 for the 
appointments of teachers by the universities, as Section 4 speaks 
about appointments in the civil service of the state and civil 
posts under the State of Karnataka. A common understanding 
was that an office in the civil service of the state or a civil post 
under the state did not include ‘teachers’ as contemplated under 
S. 53 of the Universities Act. This uncertainty was greater with 
respect to filling up of backlog vacancies in the university by 
following the procedure provided in the 2001 Rules. 
10.3	It is under these circumstances that an amendment was 
proposed to the Reservation Act, 1990. The statements of 
objects and reasons (‘SOR’) for the introduction of sub-section 
(1A) to Sec. 4 clarifies the position and helps us understand 
the newly introduced sub-Section (1A) in its proper perspective. 
“Amending Act 8 of 2004.- Government issued a 
Notification dated: 21.11.2001 under the Karnataka 
Civil Services (Unfilled Vacancies reserved for 
the persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and 
Scheduled Tribes (Special Recruitment) Rules, 
2001 for filling up of vacancies reserved for persons 
belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes. This Special Recruitment Rules was published 
under clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the 
Karnataka Civil Services Act, 1978 (Karnataka Act 14 
of 1990) in Notification No. DPAR 13 SBC 2001, dated 
6th August 2001. The Notification was issued to fill 
all unfilled vacancies by all the appointing authorities 
wherever the service conditions are governed by 
the Karnataka Civil Services Act, 1978. The Cabinet 
appointed a sub-committee of the Cabinet to monitor 
and review the progress. The Social Welfare 
Department was made the nodal Department. As on 
date the Social Welfare Department has identified 
17021 numbers of vacancies out of them, 14485 have
478
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
already been notified, of which 11573 vacancies are 
filled up and the balance is in the process of being 
filled. During the course of the review meeting it was 
pointed out to the Cabinet Sub Committee that the 
Karnataka Civil Services (Unfilled Vacancies reserved 
for the persons belonging to Scheduled Castes 
and Scheduled Tribes (Special Recruitment) Rules, 
2001 does not apply to the Universities, including 
Agriculture Universities and other institutions, etc., 
because they do not come under the purview of the 
said Rules. The non-inclusion of these institutions 
under the purview of the Notification dated 21.11.2001 
and 1.6.2002 meant that the filling up of the backlog 
vacancies by the Universities and other institutions 
could suffer from a legal infirmity.
 In view of the fact that the process of recruitment 
by these institutions i.e., Universities etc. 80% of 
the recruitment are already over, both for teaching 
and non-teaching staff and the persons recruited 
have already reported and are working, there is an 
immediate need to amend the Act to legally enforce 
the recruitment’s already made.[…]” 
10.4	It is clear from the SOR that the Cabinet Sub-Committee realised 
that the 2001 Rules were not made applicable to Universities as 
they do not come with the purview of the 2001 Rules. It is for 
this reason that the Reservation Act, 1990 is amended and the 
following sub-Section (1A) was introduced. The newly
included 
sub-section (1A) to Sec. 4 of the Act is as follows:
“Sec. 4: Reservation of appointments or posts 
etc:- 
1. […]
(1A). Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for 
the time being in force, the appointing authority shall 
identify unfilled vacancies reserved for the persons 
belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes 
in any service or post in an establishment in public 
sector as existing on the date of commencement of
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
479
Chaitra Nagammanavar v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
the Second Amendment Act, 2004 and take action 
to fill them as a one time measure within a specified 
time. The manner in which the number of vacancies 
is to be computed, the procedure for filling such 
vacancies and the time within which action is to be 
taken shall be as specified by notification by the 
State Government.
Provided that the provisions of sub-section shall not 
apply to any unfilled vacancy in Karnataka State Civil 
Services or Post in respect of which provisions have 
been already made […]” 
(emphasis supplied)
11.	 The above-referred amendment to Sec. 4 of the Reservation Act, 
1990 had the effect of bringing universities established by the state, 
within the mandate of sub-section (1A) of the Reservation Act, 1990. 
A combined reading of Sec. 2(2), 2(3)(vi) and sub-sections (1) and 
(1A) of Sec. 4 of the Reservation Act, 1990 with Sec. 53 and 54 of the 
Universities Act, 2000 would establish that the Board of Appointment 
of the university is tasked with identifying the unfilled vacancies 
reserved for SCs and STs existing as on the amendment dated 
2004 and to fill them up as a one-time measure within a specified 
time. Till here there is no difficulty. In fact, this is in the natural flow 
of the two statutes. 
12.	 The difficulty, however, arises out of the latter part of sub-Section 
(1A) which provides that the manner, procedure and the time for 
identifying, filling and
completing the same ‘shall be as specified by 
the State Government by way of a notification’. There is nothing on 
record to show that the State Government issued any notification 
in furtherance of Sec. 4(1A) specifying the manner, procedure and 
time for identifying, filling and completing the same. Sub-Section 
(1A) delegates the power of specifying the method and manner of 
selection to the Government.
13.	 Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 
appellant argues that the advertisement of the university, declaring that 
the ‘Mode of Selection’ shall be under the 2001 Rules, is a mistake. 
He calls it a mistake because the university shall be governed by the
480
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Universities Act and the Statutes made thereunder and not the 2001 
Rules, particularly when these Rules are made under the Karnataka 
State Civil Services Act, 1978.8 The university is an autonomous 
institution and can never be bound, much less governed, by rules 
intended to regulate State Civil Services, is his argument.
14.	 Mr. Anand Sanjay M. Nuli, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 
university, has taken the same stand as the appellant. He submitted 
that Sec. 78 of the Universities Act gives an overriding effect to the 
provisions of this law over other laws. He has drawn our attention to 
Sec. 53 of the Universities Act as the guiding principle for appointments 
to the post of ‘teachers’ in the university, which includes assistant 
professors, readers and professors. 
15.	 Mr. Gagan Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent 
no. 7, submits that the mandate under Sec. 4(1A) on the Government 
to specify the method and manner of selection by the issuance of 
a notification stood fulfilled when the university itself advertised by 
notifying that the ‘Mode of Selection’ shall be as per the 2001 Rules. 
He also submitted that this is the natural consequence of the purpose 
and object of introducing sub-Section (1A), which was to enable the 
universities to follow the 2001 Rules. He also relied on certain letters 
written by the State Government calling upon the university to follow 
the mandate of the
2001 Rules. 
16.	 We will examine the question as to whether the advertisement issued 
by the university intending to follow the 2001 Rules made under 
the Civil Services Act suffers from any illegality. If we come to the 
conclusion that compliance with the 2001 Rules is mandatory, we 
will affirm the judgments of the Ld. Single Judge and the Division 
Bench, and dismiss these appeals. On the other hand, if we find that 
the 2001 Rules have no application, or that they are not extended to 
appointment by the university, we will allow the appeals and affirm 
the appellant’s appointment.
17.	 The controversy about filling up backlog vacancies of SCs and STs 
by the university comes to an end with the insertion of Sec. 4(1A) 
of the Reservation Act, 1990. In fact, the provocation for introducing 
sub-Section (1A) is that the mandate of the 2001 Rules was not 
8	
Herinafter referred to as the ‘Civil Services Act’.
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
481
Chaitra Nagammanavar v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
followed by the universities. In order to extend the provision of the 
2001 Rules to universities, sub-Section (1A) was introduced and this 
is clear from the SOR of the amendment introducing sub-section (1A). 
18.	 The identification, procedure and the time for computing, filling and 
completing the exercise of filling up backlog vacancies is specifically 
delegated under sub-Section (1A) to the Government. The intent 
behind the amendment is to vest the power of specifying the method, 
procedure and time for identifying, filling and completing the same to 
the State. The importance of the Government specifying the same 
lies in the fact that these incidents vary from service to service and 
establishment to establishment. The Government is best placed to 
address the same due to its resources. This is also evident from 
Sec. 54 of the Universities Act, which suggests that appointments to 
several posts in a university shall be laid down by the Government. 
It is an admitted fact that there is no notification issued by the 
Government to this effect. However, the university was aware of 
the continuous demand of the Government to follow the method of 
selection provided in the 2001 Rules. Therefore, in compliance with 
the statutory requirement and the Governmental demand, it issued 
the advertisement declaring that the ‘Mode of Selection’ shall be as 
per the 2001 Rules.
19.	 There have been letters by
the Government demanding compliance 
with the 2001 Rules while filling up the backlog vacancies for posts 
for SCs/STs and OBCs. We will now refer to these letters. Even 
before the advertisement was issued on 21.03.2018, there was a 
letter addressed by the Principal Secretary, Department of Higher 
Education, State of Karnataka, to the university on 27.02.2018, 
instructing the latter to fill up backlog teaching posts as per the 
2001 Rules and the guidelines prescribed by the university. We may 
mention at this very stage that similar letters were addressed by the 
State Government to the university on 22.05.2018 and 09.06.2021, 
directing that the procedure contemplated under the 2001 Rules must 
be followed for filling up the vacancies of SC/ST and other backward 
classes in the university. With these letters, the issue relating to the 
legality and validity of the university’s advertisement is beyond doubt. 
20.	 While we reject the submission of Mr. Shailesh Madiyal that the 
advertisement declaring that the 2001 Rules will be the ‘Mode of 
Selection’, is a mistake, we also hold that the university is bound to
482
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
comply with what is declared in its advertisement: the 2001 Rules 
will be the guiding principles for the selection in question. We state 
this for the following reasons. Firstly, there was no uncertainty left 
after the introduction of sub-Section (1A) to Sec. 4 of the Reservation 
Act, 1990, requiring an establishment, i.e., the university, to take 
action for filling the backlog vacancies as a one-time measure by 
following the method prescribed by the Government. Secondly, 
the purpose and object of the amendment was amply clear from 
its SOR contemplating the application of the 2001 Rules for the 
universities. Thirdly, the conduct of the university in not responding 
to the categorical demands of the Government through its letters 
dated 27.02.2018, 22.05.2018 and 09.06.2021 to implement the 2001 
Rules is conclusive about its acceptance of the applicable law and 
the policy, and therefore, the advertisement. Hence, the requirement 
of the Government to specify the manner, procedure and time for 
identifying, filling backlog vacancies and completing the same was 
amply clear to the university. It is with this view that the university 
advertised that the ‘Mode of Selection’ shall be as per the 2001 Rules.
21.	 For the reasons stated above, the writ petition filed by respondent no. 
7 was rightly allowed by the Ld. Single Judge of the High Court. While 
re-iterating the reasoning of the Single Judge, the Division Bench
by 
the detailed order, upheld the findings of the Single Judge. Having 
considered the matter in detail, we have given our own reasons why 
respondent no. 7 should succeed even before this court. The appeals 
must, therefore, fail, and we hereby dismiss the same. 
22.	 Having dismissed the appeals, we realise that an unusual situation 
has arisen in this case because of the university’s conduct. Though 
the appellant was appointed in contravention of Rule 6 of the 2001 
Rules, she continued in office during the subsistence of the writ 
proceedings. When the Ld. Single judge allowed respondent no. 
7’s writ petition and set aside the appellant’s appointment dated 
27.12.2019, the appellant approached the Division Bench and 
obtained a stay. After the Division Bench affirmed the Ld. Single 
Judge’s order and dismissed the writ appeal, she approached this 
court and again obtained a stay, and this order is operating till date. 
In other words, the appellant’s appointment dated 27.12.2019 is 
continuing till date without any interruption. She has been working 
for almost four and a half years. On the other hand, the wrongful 
denial of appointment to respondent no. 7 was addressed by the Ld.
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
483
Chaitra Nagammanavar v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court by setting aside 
the appellant’s appointment, and also directing that respondent no. 
7 must be given the appointment instead. While we have agreed 
that respondent no. 7 must succeed and be restituted to the rightful 
position that he had earned, the university must also address the 
concern of the appellant. The unfortunate situation has arisen not 
because of anything wrong attributable to the appellant, but due to 
the indifferent manner with which the university conducted itself. In 
order to obviate the injustice caused to the appellant, the university 
may consider creating a supernumerary post to accommodate her. 
We are fully conscious of the limitations in creating such posts over 
and above the positions that are borne by a cadre,9 but this is an 
extraordinary situation for exercising such discretion.10 We leave 
it to the university to take a decision on this issue and pass the 
necessary orders. 
23.	 For the reasons stated above, the Civil Appeal Nos. 6772-6773/2023 
against the judgment and final order dated 12.03.2021 passed by 
the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ Appeal No. 233 
of 2021 c/w Writ Appeal No. 190 of 2021 (S-RES) are dismissed, 
subject to the observations made in the previous paragraph.
24.	 There shall be no order as to costs.
Result of the case: Appeals dismissed.
†Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey
9
Official Liquidator v. Dayanand (2008) 10 SCC 1 
10	
N.T. Bevin Katti v. Karnataka Public Service Commission (1990) 3 SCC 157