Karnataka High Court upholds latest State circular on reservation under Article 371J for candidates from Kalyana-Karnataka

The Karnataka High Court has upheld the State government’s recent circular on the manner in which reservation in education and government jobs under Article 371J of the Constitution of India is to be applied in respect of the candidates from the Kalyana-Karnataka region. [Sri Naveen Kumar H N & Others vs State Of Karnataka].Article 371J allows the Governor, and in turn the State government, to reserve posts in local cadres for locals in the Kalyana-Karnataka region (formerly known as the Hyderabad-Karnataka region).Six circulars have been issued since May 2015 to clarify the process of recruitment to the local cadre posts.Justice NS Sanjay Gowda criticised the previous circulars issued by the State government, opining that it forced local persons to make a “Hobson’s choice” and “pigeon-holed” them in local cadre posts while leaving the non-local cadre only for persons hailing from other regions..The Court said it was not the intent of Article 371J that persons from the Hyderabad-Karnataka region should be deprived of an opportunity to seek employment in all posts available.As such, the Court expressed a favourable view of the latest circular on the issue issued on February 1, 2023, since it enabled such local candidates to first apply for non-local posts. “This decision of the State Government, which was designed to ensure that the chances of a local candidate did not stand diminished by virtue of his forced exercise of an option at the time of making an application cannot be found fault with, at all,” the Court said. The Court added that the State government has hopefully now realised that separate recruitment processes for local and non-local posts were more advantageous for a local person and in line with the constitutional intent underlying Article 371J..In the February 1 circular, the State had directed that the candidature of locals be first considered under the non-local cadre and thereafter under the local cadre. Earlier, under a June 2020 notification, a single recruitment process was resorted to where local candidates had to either choose local cadre posts or other (non-local cadre) posts.The Court said that the State had no authority to restrict the right of local persons to apply for non-local cadre posts in this manner. “The State Government, in the guise of obtaining options for allotment in the local cadre, post recruitment, could not obviously deprive the local persons of their right to seek for appointment in the non-local cadre,” the bench said..The Court explained that if a candidate chose to opt for a non-local cadre post, his chances of success would anyway depend on his merit. In other words, the chances of him securing employment in the non-local cadre would be less if he is not as meritorious as someone hailing from regions other than that of Hyderabad-Karnataka. “A non-local person, by definition, is a person hailing from a developed region as compared to a local person who hails from the Hyderabad-Karnataka region, which is constitutionally recognised as being backward and which needs certain special provisions to uplift it,” the Court added..The Court was hearing the petitions filed by several non-local aspirants seeking to secure Assistant Engineer and Junior Assistant (Electrical) posts for which recruitment notification was issued last year. Their argument was that the government could not have changed the selection process midway. The Court rejected their argument and concluded that the eligibility criteria remained the same for all, while the only change made was with regard to reservation.Though it dismissed the petitions, the Court issued certain directions as an exceptional measure in respect of the vacancies in Assistant Engineer posts, considering that the dispute arose only because of the reversal of an earlier decision by the State government..Senior Counsel MS Bhagwath along with Advocate Satish K, and Advocate Keshav M Datar represented the petitioners in the two petitions.Additional Advocate General Vikram Huigol and Advocate MS Nagaraja Aga represented the State of Karnataka.Senior Counsel Sriranga and Advocate Sumana Nagananad represented Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited.Advocate NK Ramesh represented the Karnataka Examination Authority.Senior Counsel Aditya Sondhi, and Udaya Holla along with Advocates Parashurama AL and Vivek Holla represented various private respondents..[Read Judgment].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.