Judgment :- 1. These writ petitions are filed by Applicant Nos. 3 and 13 in Application No.3277/2010 connected with Applications Nos.3302 to 3313 of 2010 and 3445 to 3446 of 2010 on the file of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter called ‘the Tribunal’), being aggrieved by the order dated 15.09.2010, wherein the Tribunal has declined to grant the prayer to quash the notification bearing No.CAH/Est-2/CR-271/2009-10, dated 09.04.2010 (Annexure-A2 to the application) and has disposed of the applications with certain observations. 2. The petitioners herein along with the other applicants filed applications before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter called ‘the Tribunal’), being aggrieved by the notification dated 09.04.2010, wherein applications were invited from the eligible candidates in the prescribed format for recruitment to 287 posts of ‘Veterinary Officer’ in the Department of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services, pursuant to the order of the Government. Since there was large number of vacancies in the post of ‘Veterinary Officer’, it was thought that a special recruitment should be made to fill up 487 posts of ‘Veterinary Officers’ in the Department of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services and wherefore, special rules called Karnataka Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services (Recruitment of Veterinary Officers) (Special Recruitment) Rules, 2009, (hereinafter called ‘the Special Rules’) were promulgated enabling to fill up 487 direct recruitment vacancies in categories of posts of Veterinary Officers in the Commissionerate of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services as specified in the schedule and the proviso to the Special Rules states that nothing in these Rules shall apply to more than one recruitment. It is the case of the petitioners that the notification dated 09.04.2010 was issued calling for applications for 287 Veterinary Officers Posts and not 487 posts, in respect of which the Special Rules were made. The applicants made applications in response to the said notification and were not successful in the recruitment. Thereafter, they filed applications challenging the notification contending that when Special Rules have been made for recruitment of 487 vacancies, the notification could not have been issued for filling up only 287 posts and applications ought to have been called for all the 487 posts, so that they would have also been selected and as per the proviso, Special Rules will apply only to one recruitment. Therefore, they are prejudiced by the notification dated 09.04.2010 and sought for quashing of the same. 3. Therefore, they are prejudiced by the notification dated 09.04.2010 and sought for quashing of the same. 3. The applications was resisted by the respondent – State Government contending that after the promulgation of the Special Rules, though decision has been taken for direct recruitment of 487 posts of Veterinary Officers by direct recruitment, a decision was taken by the Government that they should be filled up in two phases of 287 posts and 200 posts respectively. Accordingly, notification has been issued for recruitment in respect of 287 posts only and the other 200 posts would also be notified and the said notification would also be under the Special Rules. The proviso to the Special Rules would not in any way affect the said recruitment of 200 posts as the Special Rules would be applicable to the recruitment of all the 487 vacancies. The applicants have participated in the recruitment process and have been unsuccessful and it is not open to them now to challenge the notification. 4. The Tribunal, after hearing the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and after verifying the original records secured from the Government, held that though Special Rules were framed to fill up 487 direct recruitment vacancies in the category of Veterinary Officers, it was decided by the Government in accordance with law that recruitment to the said 487 posts could be done in two phases and in the first phase, applications could be called for 287 posts and thereafter, in the second phase, applications could be called for over 200 posts. The Tribunal secured the records and was satisfied about the bona fides of the Government in recruiting Veterinary Officers to 287 posts as per the Special Rules in the first phase. The Tribunal, further held that since the applicants have already participated in the recruitment process and have been unsuccessful, it is not open to them to challenge the notification dated 09.04.2010 calling for applications for 287 Veterinary Officers posts and accordingly, declined the prayer for quashing the said notification and dismissed the applications. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal dated 15.09.2010, these writ petitions are filed by Applicant Nos.3 and 13 before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the complainant. 6. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal dated 15.09.2010, these writ petitions are filed by Applicant Nos.3 and 13 before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the complainant. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently argued that when Special Rules have been framed for recruitment of 487 direct recruitment vacancies in the category of posts of Veterinary Officers, the notification ought to have been issued in respect of all the 487 posts as the proviso to the Special Rules stipulates that the Special Rules shall not apply for more than one recruitment. In view of the said proviso, benefit of the Special Rules will not be applicable to the applicants, if the recruitment to 487 posts is held in phases and the intent of the Special Rules was to fill up all the vacant posts. Therefore, the notification dated 09.04.2010 could not have been issued by the first respondent – Government calling for applications to fill up only 287 posts and the notification ought to have been issued for all the 487 posts. 7. The learned Additional Government Advocate who is directed to take notice for respondents 1 to 3 submitted that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is justified and steps would be taken for recruitment of 200 posts of Veterinary Officers as per the Special Rules only and the recruitment process would be expedited. 8. We have given careful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and scrutinized material on record. 9. The material on record would show that the Special Rules were made for recruitment of 487 direct recruitment vacancies in the category of Posts of Veterinary Officers in the Commissionerate of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services as specified in the schedule and the relevant portion of Rule 1(3) of the Special Rules reads as follows: “1.3 ……… these rules shall apply to recruitment of 487 direct recruitment vacancies in the categories of posts of Veterinary Officers in the Commissionerate of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services as specified in the Schedule. Provided that nothing in these rules shall apply to more than one recruitment”. Provided that nothing in these rules shall apply to more than one recruitment”. The material on record would further show that after the Special Rules were framed, it was decided by the Government that recruitment to 487 direct recruitment vacancies in the category of Veterinary Officers can be done in two phases i.e., 287 posts can be filled up in the first phase and balance of 200 posts could be filled up in second phase under the Special Rules. The Tribunal secured the records and was satisfied that the decision was taken by the competent authority and there was no lack of bona fides in taking the said decision. The proviso to the Special Rules as culled out above would clearly show that the same does not prohibit recruitment of 487 posts in different phases and the Special Rules could be applicable till 487 posts are filled up. The Special Rules would be applicable to the balance of 200 vacancies, which would be filled up by separate notification under the same Rules and the same would not violate the proviso to the Special Rules. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners would be prejudiced as the Special Rules would not provide for recruitment in two phases and if recruitment is done in two phases, the benefit of the said Rules is not applicable as the Special Rules was applicable to 287 posts, for which recruitment has already been made in the first phase and also 200 posts, which are to be recruited in the second phase and that would substantially safeguard the interest of the petitioners. Further, it is clear from the material on record that when the petitions made applications to the post of Veterinary Officer, they knew that as per the notification dated 09.04.2010 applications had been called for only 287 posts of Veterinary Officers and not 487 posts. They did not challenge the notification at that time and they participated in the proceedings and they were not successful as they were not in the list of selected candidates in respect of 287 posts. Therefore the impugned order of the Tribunal declining to grant the prayer of quashing the notification dated 09.04.2010 calling for applications for recruitment to 287 Veterinary Officers posts, in respect of which the recruitment has already been made, is justified. Therefore the impugned order of the Tribunal declining to grant the prayer of quashing the notification dated 09.04.2010 calling for applications for recruitment to 287 Veterinary Officers posts, in respect of which the recruitment has already been made, is justified. Apart from making the observation to the effect that Special Rules would be applicable to balance 200 direct recruitment vacancies in the category of Veterinary Officers, in respect of which, steps would be taken expeditiously by the first respondent – Government notwithstanding the proviso to the Special Rules, which would sufficiently safeguard the interest of the petitioners, no ground is made out for interfering with the impugned order of the Tribunal. In view of the submission of the learned Government Advocate, we direct the respondent – State to expedite the recruitment to 200 Veterinary Officers posts in the second phase under the Special Rules in accordance with law. The Writ petitions are disposed of with the above said observations.