Karnataka High Court
Smt Shabana Begum W/O Mahammad Saleem vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 15 April, 2026
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3252-DB
WP No. 201056 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
AND
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
WRIT PETITION NO. 201056 OF 2021 (S-KAT)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SHABANA BEGUM
W/O MAHAMMAD SALEEM,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT: PLOT NO.4,
NEAR DEAF AND DUM SCHOOL,
OPP: TO KALABURAGI UNIVERSITY,
AZADPUR ROAD, KALABURAGI,
KALABURAG DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VIJAYKUMAR, ADVOCATE (THROUGH VC), FOR
SRI. PRASHANT B.WAJANTRI, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
AND:
VARSHA N
RASALKAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION,
VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE KARNATAKA EXAMINATION AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
SAMPIGE ROAD, 18TH CROSS,
MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU - 560 012.
3. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,
6TH FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. MAYA T.R., HCGP FOR R1 AND R3;
SRI. BASAVARAJ R.MATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3252-DB
WP No. 201056 of 2021
HC-KAR
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 18.09.2020 PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.7393/2016
BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT
BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION AS
PRAYED FOR AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
and
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
1. Petitioner is before the Court seeking for the following reliefs.
a) To set aside the impugned order dated 18.09.2020 passed in Application No.7393/2016 by the Hon'ble Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru vide Annexure-A and allow the Application as prayed for,
b) To direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in the selection process by verifying her records and consider her claims for selection and appointment to the post of Assistant Professor-Hindi from the date others were selected and appointed and grant all consequential benefits.
c) To pass such other order/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstance of the case.
2. A notification having been issued by respondent No.2 on 22.01.2015, for recruitment for the post of Assistant Professors in Government First Grade Colleges in the State of Karnataka. The petitioner -3- NC: 2026:KHC-K:3252-DB WP No. 201056 of 2021 HC-KAR was one of the applicants. The application of the petitioner having been rejected on the ground of the petitioner not qualifying the requirements thereunder. The petitioner had approached the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'KSAT') in Application No.7993/2016, which came to be dismissed by the KSAT vide its order dated 18.09.2020. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. Sri Vijaykumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that, in terms of the note appended under the heading "Qualification", the educational qualifications prescribed by the University Grants Commission (UGC), as amended from time to time through its regulations/guidelines, would govern the determination of eligibility.
4. He contends that one of the essential qualifications prescribed is a Master's Degree in the concerned subject with at least 55% marks or its equivalent grade. The further requirement is that candidates possessing a Ph.D. degree in the concerned/relevant discipline, obtained through a course work and evaluation process, are exempted from appearing for the National Eligibility Test (NET) or the State Level Eligibility Test (SLET/SET).
-4-NC: 2026:KHC-K:3252-DB WP No. 201056 of 2021 HC-KAR
5. It is his submission that, insofar as the requirement of a Master's Degree is concerned, the petitioner duly satisfies the same. However, with regard to exemption from NET/SLET/SET, the petitioner relies upon the fact that he was awarded a Ph.D. degree on 29.01.2015, and that a Course Work Exemption Certificate was subsequently issued in his favour on 19.07.2016.
6. Learned counsel further submits that an amendment to the UGC Regulations was notified on 11.07.2016. In terms of the proviso to Amendment Regulation No.3, it is stipulated as follows:
"Provided further that the award of degree to candidates registered for the M.Phil./Ph.D. programme prior to 11.07.2009 shall be governed by the provisions of the then existing Ordinances/Bylaws/Regulations of the institutions awarding the degree, and such Ph.D. candidates shall be exempted from the requirement of NET/SLET/SET for recruitment and appointment as Assistant Professor or equivalent positions in Universities/Colleges/Institutions, subject to the fulfillment of the following conditions:
(a) the Ph.D. degree of the candidate has been awarded in regular mode;
(b) the Ph.D. thesis has been evaluated by at least two external examiners;
(c) an open Ph.D. viva voce of the candidate has been conducted;-5-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3252-DB WP No. 201056 of 2021 HC-KAR
(d) the candidate has published two research papers from his/her Ph.D. work, of which at least one must be in a refereed journal;
(e) the candidate has made at least two presentations in conferences/seminars based on his/her Ph.D. work.
7. It is further stipulated that compliance with conditions (a) to (e) must be certified by the Vice- Chancellor/ Pro-Vice-Chancellor / Dean (Academic Affairs)/Dean (University Instruction) of the concerned institution.
8. By relying on the above proviso, his submission in that regard is that the petitioner having enrolled for the Ph.D degree prior 11.07.2009 and registered for Ph.D Degree as per registration certificate issued on 02.03.2009, she is exempted from taking NET examination, due to the amendment made to the UGC regulations for guidelines and this amendment is required to be made applicable to the petitioner, since the recruitment process had not been completed.
9. Hear Shri Vijaykumar Learned Counsel for the Petitioner Smt. Maya T R learned HCGP for respondent Nos.1 and 3; and Sri . Basavaraj R. Math learned counsel for respondent No.2 perused papers, the points that arise for consideration are:
-6-NC: 2026:KHC-K:3252-DB WP No. 201056 of 2021 HC-KAR 9.1. Whether the petitioner satisfied the eligibility criteria prescribed under the notification dated 22.01.2015 as on the relevant date?
9.2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim the benefit of the amendment to the UGC Regulations dated 11.07.2016, for the purposes of the recruitment in question?
9.3. Whether the order passed by the KSAT suffers from any legal infirmity warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?
9.4. What Order?
10. We answer the above points as under:
11. Answer to Point No.1: Whether the petitioner satisfied the eligibility criteria prescribed under the notification dated 22.01.2015 as on the relevant date?
11.1. The determination of eligibility with reference to a specified date is a foundational principle governing public recruitment. The prescription of such a cut-off date ensures uniformity, predictability, and administrative certainty. It is by now trite that a candidate must satisfy all eligibility conditions either as on the date of the notification or, at the latest, the last date prescribed for submission of applications.-7-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3252-DB WP No. 201056 of 2021 HC-KAR 11.2. In the present case, the relevant dates are 22.01.2015 and 28.02.2015. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had not been awarded a Ph.D. degree as on either of these dates. The requirement of possessing a Ph.D. degree assumes significance in the context of claiming exemption from NET/SLET/SET under the applicable regulatory framework.
11.3. The submission that the petitioner was in the process of completing the Ph.D. programme, or that the degree was awarded shortly thereafter, does not advance the petitioner's case. The law does not recognise any doctrine of "substantial compliance" or "imminent eligibility" in matters of recruitment. Eligibility is a binary condition, either fulfilled or not fulfilled, on the relevant date.
11.4. The recruitment notification operates as a binding representation to all prospective candidates. Any relaxation or deviation from the prescribed eligibility conditions, in the absence of an express enabling provision, would compromise the integrity of the selection process. It would also introduce uncertainty and -8- NC: 2026:KHC-K:3252-DB WP No. 201056 of 2021 HC-KAR subjectivity, which are anathema to fair public employment practices.
11.5. In the absence of any provision permitting relaxation or post facto acquisition of qualification, the conclusion is inescapable that the petitioner did not satisfy the eligibility criteria as on the relevant date.
11.6. Hence we answer Point No.1 by holding that the petitioner has not satisfied the eligibility criteria prescribed under the notification dated 22.01.2015 as on the relevant date.
12. Answer to Point No.2: Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim the benefit of the amendment to the UGC Regulations dated 11.07.2016, for the purposes of the recruitment in question?
12.1. The principal plank of the petitioner's argument is that the amendment to the UGC Regulations dated 11.07.2016, being beneficial in nature, ought to be applied retrospectively so as to enure to the petitioner's advantage.
12.2. This contention cannot be accepted.
12.3. At the outset, it must be noted that subordinate legislation, including regulations framed by statutory bodies such as the University Grants -9- NC: 2026:KHC-K:3252-DB WP No. 201056 of 2021 HC-KAR Commission, is presumed to operate prospectively unless a contrary intention is expressly indicated. The amendment in question does not contain any language suggesting retrospective application to recruitment processes that had already commenced.
12.4. The acceptance of the petitioner's submission would, in effect, amount to introducing a new eligibility norm into an ongoing or concluded selection process. This is impermissible in law. The principle that the "rules of the game"
cannot be altered after the game has begun is firmly entrenched in service jurisprudence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in P. Susheela v. University Grants Commission has underscored the necessity of maintaining stability in eligibility conditions throughout the recruitment process.
12.5. Further, the plea of beneficial interpretation cannot be invoked in a manner that results in inequity or discrimination. If the amendment were to be applied retrospectively, it would confer an unintended advantage upon candidates who applied despite being ineligible,
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3252-DB WP No. 201056 of 2021 HC-KAR while simultaneously disadvantaging those who, acting bona fide, did not apply due to their ineligibility as on the relevant date. Such a consequence would be directly violative of the guarantee of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
12.6. It is equally important to note that a candidate does not acquire any vested right merely by submitting an application. The right that accrues is only a right to be considered in accordance with the terms of the notification, and that too subject to the candidate fulfilling the eligibility criteria. An ineligible applicant cannot, by subsequent events or changes in law, convert an invalid application into a valid one.
12.7. From an institutional standpoint, permitting such retrospective application would undermine the finality of recruitment processes and open the floodgates to similar claims, thereby eroding administrative efficiency and certainty.
12.8. In these circumstances, the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of the amendment dated
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3252-DB WP No. 201056 of 2021 HC-KAR 11.07.2016 for a recruitment process initiated in January 2015.
12.9. We Answer Point No.2 by holding that the petitioner is not entitled to claim the benefit of the amendment to the UGC Regulations dated 11.07.2016, for the purposes of the recruitment in question.
13. Answer to Point No.3: Whether the order passed by the KSAT suffers from any legal infirmity warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?
13.1. The order under challenge has been passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal upon a detailed consideration of the material on record and the applicable legal principles.
13.2. The scope of interference by this Court under Article 226 is limited to examining whether the impugned order suffers from illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety. This Court does not sit in appeal over the decision of the Tribunal but exercises a supervisory jurisdiction to ensure that the decision-making process is lawful and free from perversity.
13.3. On a careful perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the Tribunal has correctly applied
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3252-DB WP No. 201056 of 2021 HC-KAR the settled principles governing recruitment, namely:
13.3.1. that eligibility must be determined with reference to the cut-off date;
13.3.2. that subsequent amendments cannot be applied to ongoing or concluded selection processes; and 13.3.3. that fairness and equality in public employment must be preserved.
13.4. The reasoning of the Tribunal is cogent, consistent, and in consonance with binding precedent. No error of law, jurisdictional infirmity, or perversity has been demonstrated so as to warrant interference by this Court.
13.5. We answer Point No.3 by holding that the order passed by the KSAT does not suffers from any legal infirmity warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
14. Answer to Point No.4: What Order?
14.1. For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the considered view that the petitioner, having been ineligible as on the relevant date, cannot seek to derive the benefit of a subsequent
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3252-DB WP No. 201056 of 2021 HC-KAR amendment to the governing regulations. Acceptance of such a claim would not only contravene settled principles of service jurisprudence but also undermine the constitutional mandate of equality and fairness in public employment. Hence we pass the following:
ORDER i. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
ii. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
THM
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3