Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1420 (KAR)

C. Nagaraja v. State of Karnataka

2013-12-19

K.N.PHANEENDRA, MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR

body2013
Judgment : These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order dated 13.3.2013 passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal vide Annexure-A. These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order dated 13.3.2013 passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in Application No.8965/2003 connected with Application Nos.8966- 8973/2003 vide Annexure-C.) Mohan .M. Shantanagoudar, J. These writ petitions are filed seeking quashing of the order dated 13.3.2013 in Application No.8965/2003 c/w. Application Nos.8966-8973/2003 passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal. The petitioners in WP.Nos.23295 & 29068-29080 & 29351/2013 and in WP.Nos.23669-23672/2013 (hereinafter referred to as the 'private petitioners') were working as Police Constables and Head Constables in the year 2003. The Government of Karnataka framed and published in its gazette dated 7.4.2003 the Rules called 'Karnataka State Police Service (Recruitment of Sub-Inspectors)(Special) Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Special Rules' for short). The Special Rules were made for filling up of 200 direct recruitment vacancies in the cadre of Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil) in the Karnataka State Police Services. Pursuant to such Special Rules, the Government of Karnataka issued recruitment notification, dated 7.4.2003 gezetted in Special Gazette dated 2.5.2003 in connection with recruitment of 200 posts of Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil). The said notification has also specified the procedure for recruitment as well as classification of the posts and reservation to be made horizontally as well as vertically. Pursuant to the said notification dated 2.5.2003, the private petitioners as well as private respondents applied and participated in the recruitment process which included written test also. 2. The written test, viva-voce as well as physical test were conducted as per the Special Rules. A final list of selected candidates was published on 28.10.2003 on the basis of marks secured in the written test. All the private petitioners (19 in numbers) and other 181 candidates were selected and appointed as Sub-Inspectors of Police. Since then, the private petitioners are working as Sub-Inspectors of Police. 3. The private respondents challenged the selection and appointment of the private petitioners before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in Application Nos.8965/2003 and 8966-8973/2003. All the private petitioners (19 in numbers) and other 181 candidates were selected and appointed as Sub-Inspectors of Police. Since then, the private petitioners are working as Sub-Inspectors of Police. 3. The private respondents challenged the selection and appointment of the private petitioners before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in Application Nos.8965/2003 and 8966-8973/2003. The Tribunal by the impugned order held that horizontal reservation provided in the notification dated 7.4.2003 was not legally valid as it is inconsistent with the Special Rules, and consequently horizontal reservation provided under the recruitment notification held to be bad in the eye of law. The Tribunal has further held that the selection of those candidates claiming horizontal reservation without considering the claims of the applicants before the Tribunal and similarly placed candidates was not legally correct and it needs to be revised. Consequently the selection authority is directed to re-do the selection excluding the candidates who have been selected by applying horizontal reservation. Consequential orders are also made. The contention of the private respondents (applicants before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal) that though the Special Rules do not provide for horizontal reservation, the recruitment notification dated 7.4.2003, gazetted on 2.5.2003 has provided horizontal reservation contrary to the Special Rules, is accepted by the Tribunal. 4. Sri M.S.Bhagwat, Sri Subramnya Bhat and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the petitioners in these writ petitions contended that all the private respondents herein had participated in the selection process by claiming horizontal reservation; they were not successful since they were not meritorious; the private respondents having understood the contents of the notification applied for the post of Sub-Inspectors of Police claiming horizontal reservation without protest; therefore the respondents are estopped from challenging the selection list. They further submitted that if the recruitment notification provided horizontal reservation for the first time despite the Special Rules not providing horizontal reservation, the private respondents should have challenged the very recruitment notification without participating in the selection process; the Tribunal has committed error in concluding that the recruitment in question was not a direct recruitment, but the same is a case of promotion by selection of in-service candidates; the Karnataka State Police Services including Ministerial Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1994 ('Police Services Rules' for short) provide for filling of 10% posts of Sub-Inspector of Police from among the in-service candidates; the procedure prescribed for such selection is same as prescribed for direct recruitment where horizontal reservation is provided; The Tribunal has further committed factual error in proceeding as if the Special Rules were framed for the purpose of filling up of 10% backlog vacancies which have to be selected from among the in-service candidates as one time measure; the Tribunal has failed to notice the Police Services Rules, inasmuch according to those Rules, 60% of posts are to be filled up by direct recruitment and 30% of posts are to be filled up by promotion on the basis of seniority- cum-merit from the cadres of Assistant Sub- Inspectors of Police/Head Constables and remaining 10% of posts are to be filled up by selection of in- service candidates from the cadres of Assistant Sub- Inspectors of Police/Head Constables/Police Constables; out of 10%, again horizontal reservation in respect of certain categories is prescribed; the Special Rules do not prescribe the manner for selection, however, significantly Rule 12 of the Special Rules clarifies that the provisions of Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 ('General Recruitment Rules' for short) and other rules framed under the Karnataka State Civil Services Act, 1978 would be applicable, if they are not inconsistent with the Special Rules; since there is no embargo put in the Special Rules for horizontal reservation, it is open for the selection authority to adhere to the General Recruitment Rules and the Police Services Rules while implementing the Special Rules. It is further contended that the Special Rules were made with an object of filling up of 200 posts of Sub-Inspector of Police. It is further contended that the Special Rules were made with an object of filling up of 200 posts of Sub-Inspector of Police. For filling up of such number of posts which were otherwise to be filled up by direct recruitment, the procedure for the purpose of classification and reservation of posts should be followed as per the Karnataka General Recruitment Rules including Police Services Rules; since there is no conflict between the Special Rules and the General Recruitment Rules, the selection authority was perfectly justified in selecting the petitioners by applying horizontal reservation. Rules 9(1), 9(1-A), 9(1AA), 9(1-B) and 9(1-C) of the General Recruitment Rules provide for reservation of vacancies in favour of ex-servicemen, physically handicapped, members of family of project displaced persons, women candidates, Kannada medium candidates, respectively. Even though the Special Rules do not stipulate the manner for reservation and classification of posts among different categories, Rule 5 of the Special Rules specially requires selection authority to specify in such advertisement notification and circulars, the number of vacancies to be reserved for SC/ST and Other Backward Classes. It is further contended that the Tribunal has ignored the fact that reservation to the rural candidates as specified in the Karnataka Reservation of Appointment of Posts (in the Civil Services of the State) for Rural Candidates Act, 2000 ('Act of 2000' for short) needs to be provided, particularly when the said Act is enacted to provide reservation in respect of rural candidates. By setting at knot the horizontal reservation, the Tribunal has committed error of law by directing the selection authority to ignore 'Act of 2000'. Lastly it was argued by the petitioners that many of the selected candidates who were accorded benefit of horizontal reservation, are not made as parties before the Tribunal; on the other hand, the applicants before the Tribunal have merely opposed the selection and appointment of the private petitioners herein leaving many of the selected candidates; since the private petitioners are working as Sub-Inspectors of Police from the year 2003, i.e., for 10 years, there is no reason to set aside their appointment as Sub-Inspectors. 5. 5. Sri Rajagopal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting/private respondents submitted that the Tribunal is justified in concluding that it is not a case of direct recruitment, but it is a case of promotion by selection from among the in-service candidates; the law does not recognize horizontal reservation while selecting for certain posts from in-service candidates; though the Special Rules mention that those Rules are made to fill up 200 posts of Sub-Inspectors of Police (Civil) from among the in-service candidates, the recruitment to be made was not a direct recruitment, but it was a case of accelerated promotion through departmental examination from among the in-service candidates. He further submitted that Rule 9 of the General Recruitment Rules deals with horizontal reservation and the same is available only for direct recruitment and not for promotions; Rule 9 cannot be read into Rule 8 (in respect of vertical reservation); since the Special Rules, more particularly, Rules 7(d) and 7(e) of the Special Rules clearly depict that confidential reports shall be taken into consideration and that sealed cover procedure is to be adopted, it is amply clear that the selections made are not by way of direct recruitment and they are virtually the promotions based on merit, i.e., accelerated promotion based on the departmental examination. On these among other grounds, he prays for dismissal of the writ petitions. 6. In the matter on hand, all the private respondents who approached the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal by filing applications questioning the selection and appointment of the petitioners herein to the post of Sub-Inspectors of Police had claimed horizontal reservation meaning thereby that all the private petitioners and respondents have understood the Special Rules as well as the recruitment notification in question to the effect that the horizontal reservation is provided under the Special Rules as well as the recruitment notification for 200 posts of Sub-Inspectors of Police. Having understood in such a manner, the private respondents have also claimed horizontal reservation and participated in the selection process by writing examination and by facing viva-voce, etc. Having ultimately not been selected, they have made grievance before the Tribunal that providing horizontal reservation is bad in the eye of law. In this view of the matter, the petitioners are justified in contending that private respondents are estopped from taking such a plea. Having ultimately not been selected, they have made grievance before the Tribunal that providing horizontal reservation is bad in the eye of law. In this view of the matter, the petitioners are justified in contending that private respondents are estopped from taking such a plea. As has been held by the Apex Court in catena of judgments, including the judgment in the case of Dhananjay Malik & Others Vs. State of Uttaranchal & Others, reported in (2008)4 SCC 171 , and in the case of Manish Kumar Shahi Vs. State of Bihar & others, reported in (2010)12 SCC 576 , it is not permissible for the applicants (non-selected candidates) to invoke jurisdiction of the Courts/Tribunals, only after they found that their names did not appear in the merit list prepared by the selection authority; the conduct of non-selected candidates clearly disentitles them from questioning the selection. The plea of estoppel shall be made use of against the unsuccessful candidates who are posing challenge that recruitment is not done in accordance with statutory rules and that the horizontal reservations were not provided for. If the private respondents had any valid objection they should have challenged the advertisement and selection process without participating in the selection process. Same is the verdict of the Apex Court in the case of Madanlal Vs. State of J & K, reported in 1995(3)SCC 486, in the case of Marripati Nagaraja Vs. Government of A.P, reported in 2007(11) SCC 522 , in the case of Dhananjaya Malik Vs. State of Uttaranchal, reported in 2008(4) SCC 171 , in the case of Amlan Jyoti Barooah Vs. State of Assam, reported in (2009)3 SCC 227 , in the case of K.A.Nagamani Vs. Indian Airlines, reported in (2009)5 SCC 515 , and in the case of K.H. Siraj Vs. High Court of Kerala & others, reported in 2006(6) SCC 395 . 7. However, Sri Rajagopal, learned senior counsel appearing for the private respondents relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar & others Vs. Shakti Raj & others, reported in (1997)9 SCC 527 , in the case of A.C.Jose Vs. Sivan Pillai & others, reported in (1984)2 SCC 656 , in the case of Commissioner of I.T. Vs. Shakti Raj & others, reported in (1997)9 SCC 527 , in the case of A.C.Jose Vs. Sivan Pillai & others, reported in (1984)2 SCC 656 , in the case of Commissioner of I.T. Vs. Firm Muar, reported in AIR 1965 SC 1216 , submits that the principle of estoppel by conduct or acquiescence may not be applicable to each and every case. There cannot be any dispute that the principle of estoppel may be applicable only if the facts permit its application. In Rajkumar's Case (cited supra) based on facts of that case, the Apex Court has concluded that plea of estoppel may not be applicable in the said case. But in the matter on hand, all the parties including the private respondents have participated in the selection process claiming horizontal reservation pursuant to the recruitment notification. Undoubtedly, the recruitment notification provided horizontal reservation. So also, there cannot be any dispute that principle of estoppel cannot operate against the provisions of a statute. It is also not in dispute that the Special Rules are akin to the statute. However, we find that the petitioners herein are not using the plea of estoppel against the statute. On the other hand, the reasons to be supplied by us in the succeeding paragraphs will make clear that the plea of estoppel is raised by the petitioners herein (selected candidates) against the private respondents only on facts. The only point raised by the respondents is that the Special Rules do not provide for horizontal reservation and therefore the recruitment notification which provides horizontal reservation is contrary to the Special Rules. The Special Rules are understood by the State Government so also by the candidates who have participated in the selection process in particular manner of providing horizontal reservation and knowing fully well that horizontal reservation is provided in the matter on hand, the private respondents have participated in the selection process. Hence, we can safely conclude that the plea of estoppel is staring against the private respondents. 8. In the succeeding paragraphs we will be deciding the question as to whether there is any violation of Special Rules or not. However, we find on facts that the private respondents are estopped from questioning the recruitment notification on the ground that the same runs contrary to the Special Rules. 9. 8. In the succeeding paragraphs we will be deciding the question as to whether there is any violation of Special Rules or not. However, we find on facts that the private respondents are estopped from questioning the recruitment notification on the ground that the same runs contrary to the Special Rules. 9. As aforementioned, the Special Rules are made for filling up of 200 direct recruitment vacancies in the cadre of Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil) in the Karnataka State Police Services from among the in-service candidates who are serving as Constable, Head Constable or Assistant Sub- Inspector of Police in Civil, City Armed Reserve, District Armed Reserve, Police Wireless, Karnataka State Reserve Police, etc. Rule 3 of the Special Rules clarifies that the selection shall be made on the basis of performance of in-service candidates in competitive examination held and other tests conducted under Rule 7 of the Special Rules. Rule 5 of the Special Rules mandates that selection authority shall by advertisement call for application from the eligible in-service candidates for admission to the competitive examination; the very advertisement shall specify the number of vacancies to be filled up in respect of each category of posts and number of vacancies to be reserved for the persons belonging to SC/ST and Other Backward Classes. Rule 7 of the Special Rules deals with competitive examination. The selection shall be made on the basis of the performance of candidates in, physical efficiency test, written examination in English or Kannada, viva-voce, evaluation of performance reports. Rule 7(d) of the Special Rules clarifies that the candidates must not possess adverse remarks in immediately preceding five years. If any departmental enquiry is pending against the candidate, the sealed cover procedure adopted at the time of promotion should be made applicable for selection under the Special Rules as is clear from Rule 7(e) of the Special Rules. Thus, Rule 7 of the Special Rules makes it very clear that in the competitive examination, the candidate must get through, written examination, viva-voce and physical efficiency test. His performance reports immediately preceding five years will also be taken into consideration. If any departmental enquiry is pending, the sealed cover procedure is to be adopted. Thus, Rule 7 of the Special Rules makes it very clear that in the competitive examination, the candidate must get through, written examination, viva-voce and physical efficiency test. His performance reports immediately preceding five years will also be taken into consideration. If any departmental enquiry is pending, the sealed cover procedure is to be adopted. Rule 8 of the Special Rules mandates that the selection authority shall prepare the final list of selected candidates in the order of merit on the basis of percentage of marks secured in the tests referred to in Rule 7 of the Special Rules and after taking into consideration the orders in force relating to reservation of posts for the persons belonging to SC/ST and Other Backward Classes. Rule 12 of the Special Rules states that the provisions of the General Recruitment Rules, the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, the Karnataka Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1966 and all other Rules made or deemed to have been made under the Karnataka State Civil Services Act, 1978, in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Special Rules shall be applicable to the selection and appointment made under the Special Rules. Thus, it is clear that all other Rules made under the Karnataka State Civil Services Act, 1978, if they are inconsistent with the provisions of the Special Rules, the same will have to be ignored. On the other hand, if there is no inconsistency between such Rules and the Special Rules, other Rules also shall be applicable to selection and appointment made under the Special Rules. 10. The recruitment notification dated 7.4.2003 gazetted on 2.5.2003 provides for both horizontal as well as vertical reservation. In other words, the details of the posts to be allotted under horizontal and vertical reservations are specified in the recruitment notification. The horizontal reservation is provided only for rural candidates, ex-servicemen, project displaced persons, NCC candidates, sports persons and Kannada medium candidates. The recruitment notification further stipulates that the candidates who were claiming horizontal reservation should produce the relevant records to support their claim for reservation, as provided under the notification. 11. As aforementioned, the grievance of the contesting respondents herein/the applicants before the Tribunal is that providing of horizontal reservation in recruitment notification is bad in the eye of law, inasmuch as the Special Rules do not provide for such horizontal reservation. 12. Sl. 11. As aforementioned, the grievance of the contesting respondents herein/the applicants before the Tribunal is that providing of horizontal reservation in recruitment notification is bad in the eye of law, inasmuch as the Special Rules do not provide for such horizontal reservation. 12. Sl. No.10 of the Schedule attached to the Police Services Rules refers to the appointment of Sub-Inspector of Police. The method of recruitment is three-fold: (a) 60% by direct recruitment (b) 30% by promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit from the cadres of Assistant Sub-Inspectors of Police/Head Constables and Constables, and (c) 10% by selection of in-service candidates from the cadres of Assistant Sub-Inspectors of Police/Head Constables/Police Constables. Provided that, not exceeding 10% (of 10% meant for selection of in- service candidates) may be filled by direct recruitment from among the candidates possessing 'C' Certificate after three years NCC training; not exceeding 5% may be filled by direct recruitment from among the candidates who have secured first, second and third place in individual athletic events or in any of the events such as gymnastics, bodybuilding, weight lifting, judo, wrestling, swimming, rifle shooting, power lifting, etc. Thus, the Police Services Rules prescribe for horizontal reservation to the candidates having requisite NCC Certificate and who have secured first, second and third place in sports category even in respect of 10% of seats meant for recruitment of in-service candidates. The Police Services Rules are made in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section(1) of Section 3 r/w. Section 8 of the Karnataka Civil Services Act, 1978 on the Government of Karnataka. - 36 - 13. The General Recruitment Rules shall apply to recruitment to all State Services and to all posts in connection with the affairs of the State of Karnataka and to members of all State Civil Services and to the holders of posts whether temporary or permanent except to the extent otherwise expressly provided by or under any law for the time being in force or in respect of any member of such service by a contract or agreement. Provided that Rules 3(2), 3-A, 3-B, 9- A(1) and (1-A), 15(1), 16, 16-A and 17 of the General Recruitment Rules shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the rules of recruitment specially made in respect of any service or post. Provided that Rules 3(2), 3-A, 3-B, 9- A(1) and (1-A), 15(1), 16, 16-A and 17 of the General Recruitment Rules shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the rules of recruitment specially made in respect of any service or post. From the above, it is clear that Rules 3(2), 3-A, 3-B, 9-A(1) and (1-A), 15(1), 16, 16-A and 17 of the General Recruitment Rules have got overriding effect on other recruitment rules specially made. Rule 3-A prescribes qualification for ex-servicemen. Rule 9 is relating to recruitment of ex-servicemen and physically handicapped persons. Rule 9(1-A) states that anything contained in the rules of recruitment specially made in respect of any service or post, if in such rules of recruitment, direct recruitment is prescribed as one of the methods of recruitment, certain percentage of vacancies shall be set apart in each categories of General Merit, SC/ST and in each categories among Other Backward Classes from among physically handicapped persons. 'Act of 2000' provides reservation for rural candidates in the appointments or posts in the Civil Services of the State. Section 3 of 'Act of 2000' states that 25% of the vacancies earmarked for direct recruitment in each of the categories of General Merit, SC/ST and in each categories of Other Backward Classes shall be reserved for rural candidates. Hence, there cannot be any dispute that horizontal reservation is compulsory in case of direct recruitment to provide opportunity in the appointment for rural candidates, physically handicapped persons, ex-servicemen, sports personnel, NCC cadets, etc., as provided in 'Act of 2000', General Recruitment Rules and in Police Services Rules. 14. According to the petitioners herein, the recruitment in question is a direct recruitment and it is not a case of promotion. On the other hand, it is a case of private respondents that the recruitment is not by way of direct recruitment, but it is by way of accelerated promotion on the basis of merit determined in the examinations conducted for in- service candidates. 15. Undisputedly, the recruitment notification is issued for filling up 200 direct recruitment vacancies in the cadre of Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil). It is - 39 - also not in dispute that the recruitment shall be made from among the candidates who are already serving in the Police Department as Constable/Head Constable/Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. 15. Undisputedly, the recruitment notification is issued for filling up 200 direct recruitment vacancies in the cadre of Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil). It is - 39 - also not in dispute that the recruitment shall be made from among the candidates who are already serving in the Police Department as Constable/Head Constable/Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. The hierarchy of cadres in the Department is as under:- i) Police Constable (P.C.) ii) Head Constable (H.C.) iii) Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police (ASP) iv) Sub-Inspector of Police (PSI) 16. The feeder cadre for promotion to the post of Head Constable is the cadre of Police Constable. Feeder cadre to fill up the post of Assistant Sub- Inspector of Police by way of promotion is the cadre of Head Constable. The post of Sub-Inspector of Police can be filled up either by direct recruitment or by promotion. For the purpose of promotion of the post of Sub-Inspector of Police the feeder cadre is Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. So far as the direct recruitment is concerned, the same may be made from the graduates having qualification for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police also. We are only concerned with the recruitment of Sub-Inspector of Police from among in-service candidates. None other than the in-service candidates shall be allowed to participate in the selection process in question. Though prima facie it appears that it is a case of promotion by selection on merit determined by way of examination conducted from among other candidates, the recruitment in question cannot be treated as the promotion by selection. Virtually, the recruitment, in the matter on hand, is by way of direct recruitment. The promotions can be made only to the next higher cadre. There cannot be double or triple promotion at a time under service jurisprudence. Here is a case, where even a Police Constable can compete for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police by attending examination as prescribed. A Police Constable or Head Constable or an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police is eligible to appear for examination for being appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police directly. In case, if a Police Constable is selected and appointed, he will be directly getting the post of Sub-Inspector of Police and not through the regular promotional channel such as via cadre of Head Constable and cadre of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, etc. In case, if a Police Constable is selected and appointed, he will be directly getting the post of Sub-Inspector of Police and not through the regular promotional channel such as via cadre of Head Constable and cadre of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, etc. If the selection is to be made to the next higher cadre only, that is, for example, from cadre of Police Constable to the cadre of Head Constable cadre, then the things would have been different. In such event, it could have been said that it is a case of promotion by selection on the basis of merit. But here is a case, wherein promotion is not for next higher cadre, on the other hand, even a Police Constable or Head Constable can apply for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police directly and such persons can be selected or appointed to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police directly based on the individual merit determined by the Department depending on the performance in the examination. Therefore, the same cannot be said to be a mere matter of promotion. On the other hand, it is a clear case of direct recruitment from among the in-service candidates. It is an opportunity given to the in- service candidates to get appointment directly to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. Thus, it is not a case of promotion to the post of next higher cadre by way of selection on merit. 17. Rule 12 of the Special Rules reads thus:- "12. Application of other rules: Provisions of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977, the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, the Karnataka Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1966, and all other rules made or deemed to have been made under the Karnataka State Civil Services Act, 1978, in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of these rules shall be applicable to the selection and appointment made under these rules." From the above, it is clear that if the General Recruitment Rules, Civil Services Rules and other Rules made or deemed to have been made under the Karnataka Civil Services Act, 1978 are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Special Rules, 2003, such Rules also will govern the field in the matter of selection and appointment. There is no prohibition in Special Rules for making horizontal reservation. There is no prohibition in Special Rules for making horizontal reservation. In the absence of such specific prohibition in the Special Rules for applying horizontal reservation and consequently since there is no inconsistency between the Special Rules and General Recruitment Rules, the General recruitment Rules shall be applicable to the appointment and recruitment to be made under the Special Rules. Rule 1(3) of the Special Rules states that the Special Rules are applied to filling up of not more than 200 direct recruitment vacancies in the cadre of Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil) in the Karnataka State Police Services. Rule 5 of the Special Rules clarifies that the selection authority shall specify in the advertisement/notification number of vacancies to be filled up in respect of each category of posts and number of vacancies to be reserved for the persons belonging to SC/ST and Other Backward Classes. Thus, Rule 5 of the Special Rules amply clarifies that each category of posts and number of vacancies to be reserved for the persons belonging to SC/ST and Other Backward Classes will have to be specified. Rule 7 of the Special Rules as aforementioned deals with the competitive examination. Rule 8 of the Special Rules states that the selection authority shall prepare in the order of merit, a final list of selected candidates on the basis of the percentage of marks secured in the tests and after taking into consideration the orders in force relating to reservation of posts for the persons belonging to SC/ST and Other Backward Classes. Thus, it is clear that the orders issued by the State Government from time to time relating to reservation of posts shall have to be taken into account while finalizing the list of candidates. Rule 9 of the Special Rules clarifies that the candidates whose names are included in the final list may be appointed by the appointing authority in the vacancies of particular posts in the order in which their names are found in the list after satisfying that such candidates are otherwise suitable for such appointment. Thus, it is clear that before appointment, the appointing authority should satisfy itself as to whether each of the candidates selected as against particular vacancy or category has got requisite eligibility to be appointed in that particular category or not. The enquiry, if necessary need be held also. Thus, it is clear that before appointment, the appointing authority should satisfy itself as to whether each of the candidates selected as against particular vacancy or category has got requisite eligibility to be appointed in that particular category or not. The enquiry, if necessary need be held also. Thus, it is clear that appointing authority will take all precautions while issuing appointment orders by verifying as to whether the particular selected candidate fits under particular reserved quota including under horizontal reservation. As aforementioned, Police Services Rules also prescribe horizontal reservation for NCC candidates and sports personnel. 18. At this stage it is beneficial to note Rules 5 and 8 of the Special Rules, which read thus : "5.Application for competitive examination - The Selection Authority shall by advertisement in not less than two newspapers widely circulated of which atleast one shall be in Kannada and by notification in the Official Gazette and through circulars call for application from all the eligible in-service candidates for admission to the competitive examination, in such form, before such date and time, and on payment of such fees, as may be specified therein. The Selection Authority shall subject to rule 3 also specify in such advertisement, notification and circulars the number of vacancies to be filled in respect of each category of posts and the number of vacancies to be reserved for the persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes. 8. Final List of Selected Candidates - The Selection Authority shall prepare in the order of merit, and final list of selected candidates on the basis of the percentage of marks secured in the tests referred to in Rule 7 and after taking into consideration the orders in force relating to reservation of posts for the persons belong to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes. If the percentage of marks obtained by two or more candidates are equal, order of merit in respect of such candidates shall be fixed on the basis of their age, the elder in age being placed above the younger. The Selection Authority shall prepare the list in the order of merit indicating the marks obtained by each candidate and the candidates who are eligible for appointment. Number of candidates to be included in such list shall be equal to the number of vacancies notified under rule 5. The Selection Authority shall prepare the list in the order of merit indicating the marks obtained by each candidate and the candidates who are eligible for appointment. Number of candidates to be included in such list shall be equal to the number of vacancies notified under rule 5. The list so prepared shall be published by notification in the Official Gazette and in such other manner as the Government may direct." (Emphasis Supplied) 19. Sri Rajagopal appearing for private respondents, referring to Rule 5 of the Special Rules submits that each category of posts mentioned therein cannot be equated to each category of "reservation". According to him, Rule 5 of the Special Rules merely states that vacancies to be filled in respect of each category of posts have to be notified. The said argument cannot be accepted. There is only one category of posts to be filled in the matter on hand, i.e., the posts of Sub-Inspectors of Police (Civil). There is no other category of posts at all. Therefore, Rule 5 of the Special Rules will have to be read in its entirety to mean that each category of reservation relating to posts has to be notified. Thus, in our considered opinion, the Special Rules themselves make clear that each category of posts to be reserved and number of vacancies to be reserved for the persons belonging to SC/ST and Other Backward Classes have to be notified by the selection authority, meaning thereby the vertical as well as horizontal reservation as per rules have to be provided. The said reasoning of us finds support in Rule 8 of the Special Rules in which it is specifically stated that final list of the selected candidate will have to be announced after taking into consideration the orders and circulars issued by the State Government in force relating to reservation of posts. 20. The orders so mentioned in Rule 8 of the Special Rules are relating to the order dated 20.6.1995 gazetted on 21.6.1995 and the order dated 22.11.2002 (vide Annexures-D and E respectively produced in WP.No.22127 & 32310- 32317/2013). Both these orders clearly disclose that horizontal reservation needs to be provided to certain categories. These orders/notifications issued by the State Government pertaining to providing horizontal reservation have to be read with the Special Rules as is clear from Rules 5 and 8 of the Special Rules. 21. Both these orders clearly disclose that horizontal reservation needs to be provided to certain categories. These orders/notifications issued by the State Government pertaining to providing horizontal reservation have to be read with the Special Rules as is clear from Rules 5 and 8 of the Special Rules. 21. During selection process, the tests which have to be undergone by the candidates are similar to the tests to be undergone by the candidates in direct recruitment, which means that all the tests which are prescribed for the candidates during the direct recruitment are prescribed under the Special Rules. Therefore virtually the in-service candidates are recruited to the post of Sub-Inspectors of Police only after passing prescribed tests meant for direct recruitment. The procedure adopted to select the eligible candidates under the Special Rules has all the trappings of the direct recruitment. 22. Merely because the confidential reports/performance reports of candidate participating in the selection process are to be evaluated during the course of selection, the same would not ipso-facto convert the recruitment process into selection of candidates by promotion. It is but natural for the employer to evaluate the performance report of the in-service candidates for according the benefit of higher post. Even if any departmental enquiry is pending against any candidate, the sealed covered procedure naturally will have to be adopted till the cloud is cleared. It is not open for anybody to contend that even if any departmental enquiry is pending in respect of a particular candidate or his performance is found not satisfactory, such candidate should be appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police directly merely based on his performance of written test or viva-voce. As the recruitment is relating to the in-service candidates, the general performance of each of the candidates including the performance reports and the efficiency of the candidate evaluated in the performance report will also have to be taken into consideration. Thus, only on the said basis, recruitment cannot be treated as the promotion by way of selection. 23. The term 'promotion' means the appointment of a Government Servant from a post or grade of service or class of service to a higher post or higher grade of service or higher class of service. Thus, as aforementioned, in law double or triple promotion at a time is not recognized. 23. The term 'promotion' means the appointment of a Government Servant from a post or grade of service or class of service to a higher post or higher grade of service or higher class of service. Thus, as aforementioned, in law double or triple promotion at a time is not recognized. In the matter on hand, if a Police Constable is selected to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police, he would occupy directly the post of Sub-Inspector of Police by virtue of direct recruitment and not by promotion. Thus, it is a case of direct recruitment from among the in- service candidates. Rule 5 r/w. Rules 8 and 9 of the Special Rules make it clear that the State Government had intended to apply horizontal reservation also for the recruitment. In this view of the matter, the recruitment notification has rightly provided all the details relating to horizontal reservation disclosing the posts reserved for each category. As aforementioned, 'Act of 2000' is enacted for providing reservation to rural candidates to the extent of 25% in each of the categories. The said Act cannot be ignored while deciding the matter. Thus, it is incumbent on the part of the State to reserve 25% for rural candidates in each of the categories such as SC/ST and Other Backward Classes. Same was done under recruitment notification. 24. As aforementioned, all the private respondents herein who approached the Tribunal seeking quashing of selection of these private petitioners had participated in the selection process claiming horizontal reservation. Their case has been considered on merits but they are not selected. As is clear from the recruitment notification, 83 posts were provided under horizontal reservation. The private respondents have not questioned the appointment of all such 83 appointees, on the other hand, they have chosen to question only the appointment of private petitioners herein who are 19 in numbers. Absolutely no reasons are forthcoming as to why the selection of other 64 persons who got the benefit of horizontal reservation, is not questioned. Be that as it may, out of 19 private petitioners, 13 private petitioners are appointed under General Merit rural quota, SC rural quota and III-A rural quota. Absolutely no reasons are forthcoming as to why the selection of other 64 persons who got the benefit of horizontal reservation, is not questioned. Be that as it may, out of 19 private petitioners, 13 private petitioners are appointed under General Merit rural quota, SC rural quota and III-A rural quota. Out of remaining 6 private petitioners, 4 private petitioners, namely, Y.Thimmappa, Ramakrishna K.K., R.M.Puttamadaiah and K.M.Srinivasappa are appointed under 2A-NCC, 3A- NCC and GM-NCC quota which is permissible in Police Services Rules relating to horizontal reservation as stated earlier. Only one petitioner viz., M.Dodde Gowda is appointed under General Merit/Project Displaced Person quota. Thus, it is clear that out of total 19 private petitioners, 13 private petitioners are appointed under rural quota which cannot be cancelled at all, inasmuch as the horizontal reservation with regard to rural quota is rightly prescribed as per the provisions of 'Act of 2000'. In respect of other private petitioners also, as aforementioned, we do not find any reason to cancel their appointment, inasmuch as the recruitments are direct recruitments and that the Special Rules provided for application of the General Recruitment Rules, Police Service Rules as well as the orders issued by the State Government from time to time relating to horizontal reservation. 25. The private petitioners after being selected and appointed have been serving as Sub-Inspectors of Police since 2003, i.e., for about 10 years. All the selected candidates are not impleaded as parties. From the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case and the reasons assigned, we do not find any ground to sustain the order of the Tribunal, by which the Tribunal has concluded that the horizontal reservation provided is not proper and not correct. On the other hand, we conclude that the selection authority has rightly provided horizontal reservation. Hence, the following order is made:- The impugned order dated 13.3.2013 in Application No.8965/2003 c/w. Application Nos.8966- 8973/2003 passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, stands quashed. Writ petitions are allowed accordingly.