Chaitra Nagammanavar v. State of Karnataka & Ors.

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