BENGALURU – The Karnataka High Court has restricted fresh recruitment under a state law that increased reservation quotas for Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) candidates. The interim order, issued by a division bench on November 27 , halts new appointments based on the enhanced percentages until further court directives.
However, the court allows recruitment processes already notified before November 19, 2025 , to continue. These ongoing recruitments may proceed even if they adhere to the increased reservation percentages. The court’s decision marks a significant development for state government job aspirants, creating uncertainty for new positions under the enhanced quota system.
This interim decision affects the Karnataka Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) (Reservation of Seats in Education Institutions and Appointments of Posts and Services under the State) Act, 2022.
Quota Hike Details
The challenged 2022 Act sought to increase reservations for SCs from 15% to 17% . It also aimed to raise quotas for STs from 3% to 7% . This proposed hike brought the overall reservation in the state, including 32% for Other Backward Classes (OBCs), to 56% .
Petitioners questioned the constitutional validity of this 2022 Act, specifically the reservation hike. They argue the increase violates established legal precedents on reservation limits.
Court’s Interim Directives
Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Poonacha issued the interim order. They heard two Public Interest Litigations (PILs) filed by Mahendra Kumar Mitra of Raichur and Mahesh of Bengaluru.
The High Court mandated that any appointment or promotion orders issued under the increased quota law must clearly state their temporary status. These positions will depend on the court’s final decision. This provision ensures candidates cannot claim special rights if the increased quotas are later cancelled. This interim status means the validity of these positions could change pending the final outcome of the constitutional challenge.
The court clarified that permitting ongoing recruitments, notified before the specified date, does not invalidate or overrule any prior interim or final orders from other courts or tribunals in similar cases. This ensures legal consistency while the main case proceeds.
Legal Challenges and Arguments
Petitioners argued the increased quota violates the 50% limit on reservations set by the Supreme Court. This limit was established in the landmark Indra Sawhney case . The 1992 Supreme Court judgment created a general ceiling on reservations. This ruling aims to balance affirmative action with the principle of equal opportunity.
Petitioners also claimed the State did not consult the National Commissions for SCs and STs. Articles 338(9) and 338A(9) of the Constitution require states to consult these commissions on significant policy matters affecting their respective communities. Petitioners asserted this mandatory consultation did not occur.
State Government’s Stance
The state government previously argued against stopping these recruitments. It stated that halting the process would affect administration due to “manpower shortages.” The court’s interim order reflects a temporary balance. It addresses the petitioners’ constitutional concerns while acknowledging the state’s need for functional administration. The restriction onfreshrecruitment means new job openings cannot be advertised or filled using the higher reservation percentages.