REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

         CIVIL APPEAL NO._1612_/2018                          (ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (CIVIL) NO.11404  OF 2013)

The State of Karnataka & Ors. …Appellants

versus

Shankar Baburao Kangralkar & Anr.           …Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Madan B. Lokur, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The  appellants  are  aggrieved  by  a  judgment  and  order  dated

9th September, 2011 passed by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High

Court in Writ Petition No.63822/2010 and Writ Petition No.65517/2010.

The controversy in this appeal is narrow and concerns the non-selection

of Respondent No.1 (Shankar Baburao Kangralkar) to the post of Hindi

Language Assistant in a Government High School in Karnataka.

3. A recruitment notification was issued by the appellants on 30th July,

2003 for the appointment of High School Assistant Teacher     Grade-2.

We are concerned with the appointment of Hindi Language Assistant. In

              C.A. No.1612/2018 (@ S.L.P. (C) No.11404 of 2013)            Page 1 of 6

terms of the notification the eligibility criteria was as follows:

“In  case  of  Hindi  Language Assistant,  must  be a  holder  of Bachelor Degree with Hindi as major subject.

AND

Must  be  holder  of  degree  in  Education  with  the  concerned subject or subjects as teaching methods”

4. Admittedly, Respondent No.1 is a holder of a Bachelor’s Degree

with Hindi  as  a  major  subject  but  does  not  hold a  B.Ed Degree with

Hindi as a teaching method although he does hold a B.Ed Degree from

Karnataka University. Consequently, even though Respondent No.1 had

done  quite  well  in  the  selection  process,  he  was  not  selected  on  the

ground that he did not possess the requisite qualification for appointment.

5. Feeling aggrieved, Respondent No.1 preferred Application No. 931

of  2004 before  the  Karnataka  Administrative  Tribunal  challenging  his

non-selection. By its judgment and order dated 4th December, 2009 the

Tribunal  came  to  the  conclusion  that  under  the  Recruitment  Rules,

namely, The Karnataka Education Department Services (Department of

Public Instructions)  (Recruitment)  (Amendment)  Rules,  2002 there are

three  sets  of  qualifications  postulated  for  appointment  to  the  post  of

Language  Assistant.  Broadly,  a  Language  Assistant  must  have  a

Bachelor’s  Degree in  Arts  with the  concerned language as  one of  the

optional  subjects  and  must  be  the  holder  of  a  degree  in  Education.

              C.A. No.1612/2018 (@ S.L.P. (C) No.11404 of 2013)            Page 2 of 6

Secondly, in the case of a Hindi Language Assistant, the candidate must

be a holder of a Bachelor’s Degree with Hindi as a major subject and

must  be  the  holder  of  a  B.Ed  Degree  with  the  concerned  subject  as

teaching methods. Thirdly, a special provision is made for a Language

Assistant in Hindi in the case of a certain category of candidates. We are

not concerned with the third category.

6. The Tribunal took the view that as long as Respondent No.1 holds

a Bachelor’s Degree in Arts with Hindi as a major subject and holds a

degree  in  Education  from  the  Karnataka  University,  he  fulfills  the

eligibility requirement and therefore is entitled to a direction for being

considered for selection as per his merit  by removing the last selected

candidate.

7. Feeling aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, the appellants

preferred a writ petition in the Karnataka High Court and the last selected

candidate  Prakash  Kundalik  Patil  also  preferred  a  writ  petition  in  the

High Court. Both the writ petitions were heard and dismissed by the High

Court with the result that Respondent No.1 was required to be considered

for the post of Language Assistant.

8. The High Court took the view that as long as Respondent No.1

holds  a  Bachelor’s  Degree with Hindi  as  a  major  subject  and a  B.Ed

Degree from Karnataka University, he was entitled to be considered for

selection to the post of Language Assistant. The High Court held that the

              C.A. No.1612/2018 (@ S.L.P. (C) No.11404 of 2013)            Page 3 of 6

primary requirement under the Recruitment Rules was that a candidate

for appointment as a Language Assistant must be a holder of a Bachelor’s

Degree  in  Arts  with  the  concerned  language  as  one  of  the  optional

subjects and must be the holder of degree in Education. Since Respondent

No.1 satisfied both the requirements, he was entitled to be considered for

selection.

9. Feeling aggrieved,  the present  appeal  has  been preferred by the

State of Karnataka.  Prakash Kundalik Patil has not preferred any appeal

in this Court. In our opinion, both the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal

as well as the High Court were in error and took a rather narrow and

restricted view of the eligibility criteria.

10. There is no doubt that under the Recruitment Rules a Bachelor’s

Degree in Arts in the concerned language is a pre-requisite as also a B.Ed

Degree  but  as  far  as  a  Hindi  Language  Assistant  is  concerned,  the

eligibility  criterion  for  that  post  has  been  singled  out  with  other

requirements.  The  Recruitment  Rules  make  a  specific  category  for  a

Hindi Language Assistant  by requiring a candidate  to not  only hold a

Bachelor’s Degree but hold such a degree with Hindi as a major subject

and not only as an optional subject. The additional requirement under the

Recruitment Rules is that the candidate must hold a degree in Education

with the concerned subject (Hindi) as a teaching method. In other words,

the requirement for a Hindi Language Assistant is much stricter than it is

              C.A. No.1612/2018 (@ S.L.P. (C) No.11404 of 2013)            Page 4 of 6

for  any  other  language  such  as  Kannada,  Marathi,  Telugu,  Tamil  etc.

Essentially,  the  Recruitment  Rules  have  carved  out  a  special  set  of

requirements for a Hindi Language Assistant and there is no challenge to

such a specific requirement.

11. Recently,  in  Independent  Thought  v.  Union of  India1 we have

discussed the primacy given to and the application of a special law as

against a general law from paragraph 95 onwards of the Report. More

recently in  Atma Ram Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. The Oriental Insurance

Co.  Ltd.2 a  reference  was  made  to  the  following  passage  from St.

Stephen's College v. University of Delhi3 wherein it was held:

“140. … The golden rule of interpretation is that words should be read in the ordinary, natural and grammatical meaning and the principle of harmonious construction merely applies the rule that where there is a general provision of law dealing with a subject, and a special provision dealing with the same subject, the special prevails over the general. If it is not constructed in that way the result  would  be  that  the  special  provision  would  be  wholly defeated.”

12. Clearly therefore,  it  is  well  settled  that  if  a  special  provision is

made  on  a  certain  matter,  that  matter  is  excluded  from  the  general

provision. This principle is fully applicable to The Karnataka Education

Department Services (Department of Public Instructions) (Recruitment)

(Amendment)  Rules,  2002 and the provision relating  to  the  post  of  a

Hindi Language Assistant.

1 (2017) 10 SCC 800 2 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1424 3 (1992) 1 SCC 558

              C.A. No.1612/2018 (@ S.L.P. (C) No.11404 of 2013)            Page 5 of 6

13. The undisputed facts are that although Respondent No.1 does have

a Bachelor’s Degree with Hindi as a major subject, but he does not have a

B.Ed with Hindi as a teaching method. That being so, the appellants were

justified in not  accepting the candidature of  Respondent No.1 and the

Karnataka  Administrative  Tribunal  as  well  as  the High Court  were  in

error in granting relief to Respondent No.1.

14. The appeal is allowed in the above circumstances but with no order

as to costs.    

 ...……………………J  (Madan B. Lokur)  

                                                                     ...…………………....J New Delhi;                       (Deepak Gupta)       February 6, 2018   

              C.A. No.1612/2018 (@ S.L.P. (C) No.11404 of 2013)            Page 6 of 6