JUDGMENT : P.B. Bajanthri, J. With the consent of counsels for the parties main petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs. "(a) Hold that the interview fixed by the Bangalore University is not valid in the eye of law and issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or orders quashing the interview letter issued by the Bangalore University fixing the date of interview on 30.05.2019, vide Annexure-H bearing No.ESTII/ Prof.Post. Interview/2019-20 dated 20.05.2019, issued by the 2nd respondent. (b) Declare that the interview fixed on 30.05.2019 is in the violation of the statutes framed by the Bangalore University. (c) Direct the Bangalore University to issue fresh advertisement for filling up of the posts mentioned in the notification in question produced as Annexure-A bearing No. ESTII: TP:BL:NOTI:2017-18 dated 21.03.2018. (d) Issue a direction to the University it shall not hold interviews for filing up of the posts mentioned in the above notification being in violation of the statutes framed by the University. (e) Pass such other order or orders as deems fit by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice and equity." 3. In the guise of implementing Karnataka State Civil Services (Unfilled vacancies reserved for the persons belonging to the Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes) (Special Recruitment) Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred as "Rules, 2001") issued under the Sub Section 1 of Section (3) read with Section 8 of the Karnataka State Civil Services Act, 1978 (Karnataka Act 14 of 1990) notified on 21.11.2001, respondent No.4-University notified various vacancies including Professor in Civil Engineering which is the issue involved in the present writ petition. Such notification was issued on 21.03.2018 while fixing the last date as 23.04.2018, there was a delay in completing the process of selection and appointment to various posts including Professor in Civil Engineering. Delay is on account of litigations before this Court. Ultimately, Registrar of Bengaluru University has given an undertaking while filing counter affidavit in CCC.No.147/2019 on 08.03.2019 to the extent that process of selection and appointment would be completed on or before 30.04.2019. In terms of undertaking contempt proceedings in CCC.No.147/2019 was dropped. Undisputedly, Respondent-University has not completed the process of selection and appointment of various posts pursuant to the advertisement issued on 21.03.2019 including the post of Professor in Civil Engineering. In terms of undertaking contempt proceedings in CCC.No.147/2019 was dropped. Undisputedly, Respondent-University has not completed the process of selection and appointment of various posts pursuant to the advertisement issued on 21.03.2019 including the post of Professor in Civil Engineering. Interview notice in respect of Civil Engineering was notified on 30.05.2019. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the issuance of interview notice to the impleaded respondent-Sri. Jayaramappa, 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of quashing interview notice dated 30.05.2019 contended that respondent-University has not adhered to the norms while awarding marks under various heads, in particularly, in Academic Performance Indicator (hereinafter referred as to 'API' for short). It was further contended that respondent-University were permitted to continue of selection and appointment process pursuant to the notification dated 21.03.2018 on or before 23.04.2019 with reference to last date for submission of application on 23.04.2018, since Clause 7 (Annexure-J) and sub Clause (d)(16) of Bangalore University statute prohibits for continuation of process of selection beyond one year. In the present case one year would be completed from the last date of submission of application would be on or before 22.04.2019 whereas, interview date is fixed as 30.05.2019. Hence, interview notice is in violation of the aforesaid clauses of the statute. 5. Per contra, Sri. Nagarajappa, learned counsel for the private respondent Nos.4 to 11 submits that petitioner having participated in the process of selection, he cannot turnaround and question and validity of the mode of selection. It was also contended that statute stated supra, sub Clause 7 and Clause (d) of (16) has no application to the present recruitment since, the University has invoked, Rules 2001, is being implemented. Hence, Clause 7 of the statute read with Bangalore University Clause (d)(16) are not attracted. It was further contended that matter was sub-judice before this Court in WP.No.30506-30523/2013 and contempt matter in CCC.No.147/2019, it was concluded only on 08.03.2013. Filing counter affidavit by the University to the extent of process of selection of appointment pursuant to the advertisement dated 21.03.2018 would be completed within one year on or before 30.04.2019. Further, there is default on the part of the respondent University in not adhering to the counter affidavit, which was filed in the contempt petition. 6. Filing counter affidavit by the University to the extent of process of selection of appointment pursuant to the advertisement dated 21.03.2018 would be completed within one year on or before 30.04.2019. Further, there is default on the part of the respondent University in not adhering to the counter affidavit, which was filed in the contempt petition. 6. It was also contended that petition is pre-mature, unless and until attaining finality in the selection process, petitioner has no cause of action, whereas the petitioner has rushed to this Court. Hence, writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent University, submits that no doubt there is a delay on the part of university, which was beyond the control of the University for the reasons that after disposal of contempt petition in CCC.No.147/2019 on 08.03.2019, they were required to prepare Board of appointment consisting of professionals from various Universities. Due to Loksabha elections, which was held in the month of May 2019, since concerned officials could not give the date, for the purpose of constituting the Board of appointments. Hence, the delay was not intentional one. 8. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. Core issue in the present writ petition are: (i) Whether respondent-University were prohibited in proceeding with the selection and appointment to various posts pursuant to the advertisement dated 21.03.2018 or not in view of the Clause 7 of the statute and Sub Clause d(16) of Bangalore University or not? (ii) Further, whether university has assessed and awarded marks in terms of the norms of the University for the purpose of selection and appointment to the post of Professor in Civil Engineering or not? Clause 7 and Clause d(16) reads as follows; "7. Interviews shall be held within one year from the last date of receipt of application, failing which there shall be a fresh advertisement. 16. Interview: For the purpose of inviting the candidates for interview, the following criteria shall be followed: (d). Interviews shall be held within one year from the last date of receipt of application, failing which there shall be a fresh advertisement." 9. Respondent-University advertised for various posts including Civil Engineering on 21.03.2019 while fixing the last date for submission of application as 23.04.2019. Interviews shall be held within one year from the last date of receipt of application, failing which there shall be a fresh advertisement." 9. Respondent-University advertised for various posts including Civil Engineering on 21.03.2019 while fixing the last date for submission of application as 23.04.2019. The contention of the petitioner is that process of selection and appointment pursuant to the advertisement dated 21.03.2018 is required to be completed on or before 22.04.2019 in terms of Clause 7 read with Sub Clause d(16) of Bangalore University Statute. No doubt, aforesaid Clauses prohibits or stipulates that process of selection to various posts in the University is required to be completed within one year from the date of fixing last date. 10. It is to be noted that matter was sub-judice in WP.Nos.30506-523/2013 and connected matters read with CC.No.147/2019, which was disposed on 08.03.2019. Paragraph-6 of the order passed in writ petition cited, dated 22.03.2017 reads as under; "6. As there is no dispute that the special recruitment drive was not undertaken pursuant to the communications as at Annexures-B and C and there being no dispute that there are backlog vacancies, particularly in the reserved categories, it is just and necessary that the respective Universities undertake the recruitment drive with expedition." 11. In the counter affidavit, University has given an undertaking that the process of selection would be completed on or before 30.04.2019. In CCC.No.147/2019 with reference to counter affidavit filed by the University, contempt proceedings was dropped while recording the counter affidavit that the University would be completing process of selection on or before 30.04.2019. In that view, matter was pending before this Court, question of completing process of selection or adhering to Clause 7 read with Sub Clause d(16) of the statute would not be a hurdle for the reasons process of recruitment is under Rules, 2001. Moreover, after disposal of contempt matter dated 08.03.2019, further there is delay in adhering to the undertaking given in the counter affidavit in contempt matter for the reasons that Board of appointment required to be constituted by the various professors from different universities who are otherwise, busy in Loksabha Elections in the month of April and May, 2019. It is to be noted that above clauses set in the statute would not be hurdle for the completion of selection and appointment process pursuant to the advertisement dated 21.03.2018 read with Rules, 2001. It is to be noted that above clauses set in the statute would not be hurdle for the completion of selection and appointment process pursuant to the advertisement dated 21.03.2018 read with Rules, 2001. Rules 2001 is a Special Rules where there is no time limit for process of selection and appointment, apparently, for the reasons that title of the Rules itself is 'unfilled vacancies referred for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes' which is a special recruitment issued under the Karnataka State Civil Service Act, 1978 by invoking sub Section (1) (3) read with Section 8 of the Act, 1978. In view of these facts and circumstances, the petitioner's contention that respondent-University cannot go ahead with the process of selection pursuant to the advertisement dated 21.03.2018 beyond one year is hereby rejected. Insofar as the contention of the petitioner that respondent-University has not adhere to the norms for awarding marks to various education qualification like Degree, Post Graduation are concerned it is on merit since the process of selection is at the stage of holding interview to the petitioner and others including respondent Nos.4 to 11. Thus, petitioner's grievance is in respect of any anomaly in awarding marks is to be considered, it is a pre-mature. In view of these facts and circumstances, petitioner has not made out a case so as to interfere with the notice interview dated 20.05.2019. Lapse on the part of respondent-university is taken note off insofar as not implementing Special Rules, 2001, even after 18 years from the date of issuing Special Rules, 2001. Supreme Court in the case of Superintending Engineer, Public Health, U.T. Chandigarh and others V/s. Kuldeep Singh and Others, (1997) 9 SCC 199 at paragraphs 5 and 6 held as under: "5. This principle of power coupled with duty was succinctly stated by Earl Cairns L.C. in the House of Lords in Julius V/s. Lord Bishop of Oxford [AC at pp. This principle of power coupled with duty was succinctly stated by Earl Cairns L.C. in the House of Lords in Julius V/s. Lord Bishop of Oxford [AC at pp. 222-223] quoted with approval therewith by this Court in Commissioner of Police, Bombay V/s Gordhandas Bhanji [ SCR 135 at p. 147] thus: "There may be something in the nature of the thing empowered to be done, something in the object for which it is to be done, something in the conditions under which it is to be done, something in the title of the person or persons for whose benefit the power is to be exercised, which may couple the power with a duty, and make it the duty of the person in whom the power is reposed, to exercise that power when called upon to do so" 6. It would thus be clear that the petitioner was under a constitutional duty coupled with power. Every public servant is a trustee of the society and in all facets of public administration, every public servant has to exhibit honesty, integrity, sincerity and faithfulness in implementation of the political, social, economic and constitutional policies to integrate the nation, to achieve excellence and efficiency in the public administration. A public servant entrusted with duty and power to implement constitutional policy under Articles 16(4), 16(4-A), 15(4) and 335 and all inter-related directive principles, should exhibit transparency in implementation and should be accountable for due effectuation of constitutional goals. Maintenance of the roster and strict adherence to it in accordance with the Brochure issued by the Government of India in that behalf to implement the rule of reservation in promotion is the charge and trust put on public servants. The Constitution has trusted the public servant as honest administrator to effectuate public policy and constitutional goals. The petitioner herein, has betrayed that trust and tended to frustrate the public policy. It is deducible from the facts that the petitioner failed to perform that constitutional duty. The Administrator of the Union Territory of Chandigarh should look into and take appropriate action against the erring officers concerned and report compliance to the Registry of this Court within two months." 12. Accordingly, petition stands dismissed. 13. It is deducible from the facts that the petitioner failed to perform that constitutional duty. The Administrator of the Union Territory of Chandigarh should look into and take appropriate action against the erring officers concerned and report compliance to the Registry of this Court within two months." 12. Accordingly, petition stands dismissed. 13. Concerned respondent is hereby directed to invoke Rule 10 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes Reservation of Appointments Etc., Rules 1992, issued under the Act called "The Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments etc.), Act, 1990 and draw the proceedings and submit in this case within a period of two months, since Rules, 2001 is implemented in the year 2012 in partial and it has not attained finality. Rule 10 of the Rules, 1992, reads as follows; "10. Authority to take action for contravention of the provisions of the Act etc.- (1) The authorities to take action for contravention of different provisions of the Act and rules, are the (commissioner/Director of Social Welfare); Director of Tribal Welfare or the Officers authorized by them in respect of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and the Director of Backward Classes or the Officers authorized by them in respect of Other Backward Classes (hereinafter referred to as authorized officer). (2) If the authorized officer has reasons to believe that there has been any violation of the provisions of the Act, rules or the reservation policy of the State, in the matter of admissions or appointments, he shall send a report to the admission authority or appointing authority giving thirty days time to set right such violation. (3) On the failure of the admission authority or appointing authority to set right the violation or to offer satisfactory justification the authorized officer shall declare the appointment or admissions made in violation of the provisions of the Act and Rules, as void: Provided that before making such a declaration, a reasonable opportunity shall be given to the persons who are likely to be affected thereby. (4) On the failure of the admission authority or appointing authority to offer satisfactory justification, the authorized officer may take steps to prosecute such admission authority or appointing authority." 14. Since the date of interview was 30.05.2019, it was stalled by this Court in the present petition at the time of Admission. (4) On the failure of the admission authority or appointing authority to offer satisfactory justification, the authorized officer may take steps to prosecute such admission authority or appointing authority." 14. Since the date of interview was 30.05.2019, it was stalled by this Court in the present petition at the time of Admission. Therefore, respondent-University is hereby directed to fix the date of interview afresh within one week from the date of receipt of this order and further complete the selection process within a period of three weeks. For the reasons that University has already violated their own undertaking given in the counter affidavit which was taken into consideration by this Court in CCC.No.147/2019, while dropping the contempt proceedings. In view of the disposal of the main petition, IA.Nos.3/2019 and 5/2019 do not survive for consideration and same are disposed of. Registry is hereby directed to furnish the copy of this order to the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka. Re-list on 03.09.2019 for compliance of paragraph-13 of this order.