CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

No Mandate in Recruitment Rules for Subject-Wise Specification in Home Science - Supreme Court Upholds KPSC Lecturer Notification

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India has ruled in favor of the Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) regarding the recruitment of lecturers in Home Science. The Court found that there is no requirement in the recruitment rules for specifying subject specializations within the field of Home Science for lecturer positions.

The appeal was against the decision of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal and the High Court, which had quashed a KPSC notification for recruiting 18 lecturers in Home Science, citing the lack of subject specialization details. The appellants argued that this requirement was not mandated by the governing recruitment rules.

Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, delivering the judgment, emphasized, "Service jurisprudence must begin and end with rules that govern the process." The Court scrutinized the Karnataka Education Department Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1964, and the Special Recruitment Rules, 1993. They noted that these rules only require a Master's Degree in Home Science, without a need for specialization, for teaching undergraduate students.

The Court pointed out the High Court's error in extending its review beyond the stipulated rules, stating, "If the High Court had confined itself to the basic features of judicial review, it would have avoided committing the error that it did."

The judgment also referenced an affidavit from the University Grants Commission (UGC), supporting the non-requirement of subject-wise classification for Home Science lecturer posts.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the judgments of the High Court and the Tribunal. The recruitment process based on the KPSC notification was upheld.

Date of Decision: February 22, 2024

SMT. VIDYA K. & ORS. VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

Latest Legal News