http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: BHAKTA RAMEGOWDA & ORS, ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       24/01/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             WITH      CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 492-98, 501-02 &/499 OF 1997 (Arising out  of SLP (C) Nos. 6086-87/95, 17091-95/96, 5152- 53/96 and 10429/96)                          O R D E R      Leave granted.  We have  heard learned  counsel on both sides.      These appeals  by special leave arise from the order of Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, made on April 29, 1994 in Application Nos. 3727/82 and batch.      The admitted  position is  that under  Karnataka  Civil Services (General  Recruitment) Rules,  1977, the Government exercising the  power under  proviso to  Article 309  of the Constitution has  amended  Rule  8  and  introduced  proviso thereto. It reads as under:      "8. Provision  for  reservation  of      appointments or  posts:- Subject to      provisions of  sub-rule (3) of Rule      9, appointments  or posts  shall be      reserved for  the  members  of  the      Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes,      Backward Tribes  and other Backward      Classes to  such extent and in such      manner as  may be  specified by the      Government  under   clause  (4)  of      Article 16  of the  Constitution of      India."      As a  result thereof,  the Government  is empowered, in consistency with Article 335 of the Constitution, to a point by promotion  by way of reservation of the members belonging to Scheduled  Castes, Scheduled  Tribes and  other  Backward Classes to  such  extent  and  in  such  manner  as  may  be specified by  the Government  under clause (4) of Article 16 of the  Constitution. By  another order dated April 1, 1992, the second proviso was introduced which reads as under:      "Provided   that,   notwithstanding      anything   in    the    rules    of      recruitment   specially   made   in      respect of any service or post, the      backing    vacancies     in     the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

    promotional    quota    shall    be      determined  and   implemented  with      effect from 27th April, 1978.      Note: The backlog vacancy means the      extent of  the number  of vacancies      available under  the roster  system      upto the  level of  lowest category      in group-A  posts  calculated  from      27th April 1978."      Under this  proviso, the  Government has introduced the principle of  filling up of the posts reserved for Scheduled Castes,  Scheduled   Tribes  and   Other  Backward   Classes including  the   backlog  vacancies   in  promotional  quota effective from  April 27,  1978.  These  rules  came  to  be challenged in the Tribunal. The Tribunal had held that first proviso cannot  be made  with retrospective effect. The view taken by the Tribunal is wholly unsustainable.      A Constitution  Bench of  this Court  had held  in B.S. Vadera vs.  Union of India [AIR 1969 SC 118] that rules made under the  proviso to  Article 309  of the  Constitution are legislative in  character and, therefore, they could be made with retrospective effect. The same principle was reiterated in several decisions, viz., Chief Secretary to Government of Andhra Pradesh  & Anr. V/s. V.J. Cornelius etc. [AIR 1981 SC 1099], P.D.  Aggarwal &  Ors. V/s. State of U.P. & Ors. [AIR 1987 SC  1676], Supreme  Court Employees Welfare Association V/s. Union  of India & Ors. [AIR 1990 SC 334], R.L. Bansal & Ors. V/s.  Union of  India & Ors. [AIR 1993 SC 978] and V.K. Sood V/s.  Secretary, Civil  Aviation &  Ors. [AIR  1993  SC 2285]. The  view of  the Tribunal  that the  rules cannot be made with  retrospective  effect  is  ex-facie  illegal  and unsustainable. The  rules  also  were  struck  down  on  yet another ground,  namely,  until  the  guidelines  have  been provided for  working out  the rules,  the rules are non est and, therefore, the second proviso is ultra vires. This view also is  not correct.  The operation  of the  rules does not depend on  the guidelines  to be  laid. Merely  because  the guidelines have not been provided in the manner in which the backlog vacancies  are required  to be filled up, the second proviso to  Rule 8  made in  exercise  of  the  power  under proviso to  Article 309 does not become non est. At best, it remains unworkable.  The Government is required to formulate the guidelines under Article 16(4) of the Constitution as to the manner in which the backlog vacancies are required to be filled  up.   Admittedly,  such  guidelines  have  not  been provided including  preparing the  roster,  identifying  the backing vacancies  and the placement of the officers between the general  and reserved  categories which were annexed for first time  along with  the counter-affidavit  filed in  the Tribunal.  Under   these  circumstances,  the  view  of  the Tribunal is  not correct.  It may  be construed  that to the extent the  second  proviso  remains  unworkable  until  the guidelines under  Article 16(4) have been issue by the State Government. Under  these circumstances,  whatever promotions have been  given, they  would remain valid subject to laying down of  the guidelines  and  working  out  of  the  backlog vacancies in the light of the guidelines provided thereunder and adjustment  of the  11 officers  promoted  under  second proviso. All  the promotions  will be  subject to  the above fitment and  adjustment between  general candidates  and the reserved candidates  in the  respective categories,  namely, Scheduled Castes  and Scheduled  Tribes and  other  Backward Classes in  accordance with  the guidelines and the law laid down by  this Court.  The State  Government is  directed  to complete the  exercise within  a period of three months from

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

the date of the receipt of the order.      The appeals are allowed to the above extent. No costs.