01Facts
The petitioners, Government Pre-University College lecturers, challenged before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal the 2024 Cadre and Recruitment Rules insofar as they increased the experience required for in-service direct recruitment to Principal from five years to ten years.
¶ 1The Tribunal rejected their application for interim relief seeking suspension of that requirement and permission to participate in the recruitment without it. The petitioners then sought relief under Articles 226 and 227, challenging the Tribunal’s interim order. The recruitment notification was issued on 3 September 2026, with 30 October 2026 as the application deadline.
¶ 1, 4–502Issues
i.Whether the High Court should interfere with the Tribunal’s refusal to stay the ten-year experience requirement for in-service direct recruitment to Principal.
¶ 1, 6ii.Whether the petitioners could be permitted, as interim relief, to participate in the recruitment without satisfying that requirement.
¶ 103Law Applied
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution provide the basis for the High Court’s supervisory and writ jurisdiction.
p. 14The Court observed that prescription of qualifications for a post falls within the State’s domain, depending on the requirements of the post.
¶ 5A rule is presumed valid unless and until it is declared otherwise; recruitment conducted in accordance with the prevailing Cadre and Recruitment Rules could therefore proceed while the challenge to those rules remained pending.
¶ 6No precedent was cited.
04Reasoning
The recruitment notification complied with the prevailing 2024 Rules, which required ten years’ experience. The petitioners’ challenge was to the validity of that requirement, including their contention that the increase from five to ten years lacked justification and excluded them from consideration.
¶ 4, 6The Court held that the requirement remained operative unless declared invalid and that its prescription was a matter for the State. It therefore found no basis to interfere with the Tribunal’s refusal of interim relief.
¶ 5–605Holding
The Court answered the issues against the petitioners, declined to interfere with the Tribunal’s interim order, and rejected the writ petition.
¶ 6–7No interim permission to participate without the ten-year experience requirement was granted.
¶ 6–7Original Court PDF
SMT NAGARATHNA K RvsTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
