Most Meritorious 371J Applicant Misplaced In Residuary Cadre Wins HK Seniority-List Entry: Karnataka HC Upholds Order

KPTCL issued a recruitment notification on 8 September 2016 for Junior Assistant posts, including posts reserved for candidates from the Hyderabad-Karnataka Region under Article 371J.

The petitioner applied claiming that reservation and was selected, but, because he was found sufficiently meritorious for the residuary cadre, the authorities placed him in that cadre rather than the Hyderabad-Karnataka cadre.

After a 2023 seniority list placed him in the non-Hyderabad-Karnataka cadre, he challenged the relevant endorsement and list, seeking placement in the Hyderabad-Karnataka cadre or, alternatively, an opportunity to exercise an option under the 2013 Order.

The Single Judge allowed the petition and directed his inclusion in the appropriate place in the Hyderabad-Karnataka Region final select list, subject to hearing anyone who would be displaced.

KPTCL and its officers appealed, relying, among other things, on a 16 November 2016 circular and delay and laches.

Article 371J of the Constitution and the Karnataka Public Employment (Reservation in Appointment for Hyderabad Karnataka Region) Order, 2013 provide the framework for reservation and separate cadre arrangements for the region.

The Court treated the Hyderabad-Karnataka cadre and the residuary cadre as distinct, and held that the later circular dated 16 November 2016 operated prospectively and did not govern a recruitment process commenced under the earlier notification dated 8 September 2016.

It also accepted that delay and laches may be raised in challenges to seniority or cadre placement, but held that delay did not bar relief on the facts of this case.

The petitioner’s application expressly claimed Hyderabad-Karnataka reservation, and the 2016 recruitment notification contemplated posts reserved for that region. The Court therefore concluded that his selection should have been made within that cadre; placing him in the residuary cadre because of his merit was an administrative mistake, not a basis to deprive him of the consequences of the reservation claimed.

The later circular could not alter the governing terms of the earlier recruitment notification.

The Court also rejected the delay objection, agreeing with the Single Judge’s assessment, and observed that the possibility of other candidates bringing similar claims did not justify denying this petitioner relief; delay could be considered on the merits of any later individual claim.

It dismissed the writ appeal and left undisturbed the Single Judge’s direction to include the petitioner at the appropriate place in the Hyderabad-Karnataka Region final select list with consequential benefits, subject to hearing any person who would be displaced.