Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary Vague and Omnibus Allegations Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution in Matrimonial Disputes: Calcutta High Court High Court Emphasizes Assessee’s Burden of Proof in Unexplained Cash Deposits Case Effective, efficient, and expeditious alternative remedies have been provided by the statute: High Court Dismisses Petition for New Commercial Electricity Connection Absence of Receipts No Barrier to Justice: Madras High Court Orders Theft Complaint Referral Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C Rajasthan High Court Emphasizes Rehabilitation, Grants Probation to 67-Year-Old Convicted of Kidnapping" P&H High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Advocate Renuka Chopra: “A Frustrated Outburst Amid Systemic Challenges” Kerala High Court Criticizes Irregularities in Sabarimala Melsanthi Selection, Orders Compliance with Guidelines Non-Payment of Rent Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust: Calcutta High Court Administrative Orders Cannot Override Terminated Contracts: Rajasthan High Court Affirms in Landmark Decision Minimum Wage Claims Must Be Resolved by Designated Authorities Under the Minimum Wages Act, Not the Labour Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court Madras High Court Confirms Equal Coparcenary Rights for Daughters, Emphasizes Ancestral Property Rights Home Station Preferences Upheld in Transfer Case: Kerala High Court Overrules Tribunal on Teachers' Transfer Policy Failure to Formally Request Cross-Examination Does Not Invalidate Assessment Order: Calcutta 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.

Similar News