Karnataka High Court
The Joint Commissioner vs Reena Tripathi on 28 May, 2018
Bench: B.S Patil, Raghvendra S.Chauhan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MAY 2018
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. S. PATIL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN
WRIT PETITION No.22522/2018 (S-CAT)
BETWEEN:
The Joint Commissioner,
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (HQ),
18, Institutional Area,
Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg,
New Delhi - 110 016. ...Petitioner
(By Sri S. Rajappa, Advocate for
Sri Vishnu Bhat, Advocate)
AND:
Reena Tripathi,
D/o MWO J.P. Tripathi,
Age 32 years,
R/at CCC, HQ TC(U) Air Force,
J.C. Nagar Post, Hebbal,
Bengaluru - 560 006. ... Respondent
(By Sri L. Mahesh, Advocate for C/R)
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 19.3.2018
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Bangalore in
O.A.No.170/000869/2017 as per Annexure-D and consequently
dismiss the application.
2
This writ petition coming on for preliminary hearing this
day, Raghvendra S. Chauhan J, made the following:
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the legality of the order dated 19.3.2018, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, whereby the learned Tribunal has directed the petitioner to appoint the respondent, Ms. Reena Tripathi, on the post of primary teacher in KV School. The learned Tribunal has also imposed a cost of `25,000/- on the petitioner, and directed that this cost shall be paid within one month.
2. This case has rather checkered history which begins with the issuance of Advertisement No.7 published in Employment News, on 20/26.7.2013. By the said advertisement, the petitioner had advertised vacancies for the post of primary teacher in KV School. Since the respondent, Ms. Reena Tripathi, was hopeful that she would be selected for the post of primary teacher, she had applied for the same. However, by order dated 26.8.2014, her candidacy was rejected, ostensibly on the ground that although she has the qualification of B.Ed, but she does not meet the essential qualification as advertised for the said post. Since the respondent was aggrieved by the said order, she filed 3 an Original Application, namely O.A.No.1496/2014, before the learned Tribunal. By order dated 9.6.2015, the learned Tribunal allowed the O.A., and directed the petitioner to consider the respondent's case for selection to the said post.
3. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the order dated 9.6.2015, it filed a writ petition before this Court, namely W.P.No.34208/2015. However, by order dated 9.12.2015, this Court dismissed the writ petition. Furthermore, since the petitioner was aggrieved by the order dated 9.12.2015, it filed a S.L.P., namely S.L.P.No.26678/2016, before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. But even the S.L.P. was dismissed by the Apex Court, by its order dated 17.4.2017.
4. Consequently, pursuant to the order passed by this Court, dated 9.12.2015, the petitioner declared the selection result. According to the result, the respondent had secured 78.33% marks, as against the cut-off marks of 69.25%.
5. But despite her merit, despite her having the essential qualification, and despite her submitting several representations, the petitioner did not consider her case for appointment. Therefore, the respondent was forced to file another O.A., 4 namely, O.A.No.201/2017 before the learned Tribunal. By order dated 14.9.2017, the learned Tribunal directed the petitioner to consider the respondent's case immediately, if the last selected candidate of general category has scored marks less than the applicant. However, despite the clear directions of the learned Tribunal, by order dated 1.12.2017, the petitioner again rejected the respondent's case for appointment on the post of primary teacher, ostensibly on the ground that she does not possess the requisite qualification.
6. Aggrieved by the order dated 1.12.2017, the respondent again approached the learned Tribunal by filing O.A.No.170/00869/2017. By the impugned order dated 19.3.2018, the learned Tribunal has directed the petitioner to appoint the respondent, and has imposed the cost as aforementioned. Hence this petition before this Court.
7. Mr. S. Rajappa, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has pleaded that the respondent does not have the essential qualification of having passed the Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET) conducted by the CBSE in accordance with the guidelines 5 framed by the NCTE for the purpose. Therefore, the petitioner was justified in rejecting the respondent's candidacy.
Secondly, the learned Tribunal was not justified in directing the petitioner to appoint the respondent.
Thirdly, if the impugned order were permitted to subsist, it would open flood gates. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be interfered with by this Court.
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. L. Mahesh, has pleaded that even on earlier occasion, in O.A.No.1496/2014, the petitioner had raised a similar contention, namely that the respondent does not fulfill the essential qualification prescribed in Advertisement No.7. But, the said contention was rejected by the learned Tribunal by its order dated 9.6.2015. Even when the said order was challenged before this Court, this Court had dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner. This Court has upheld the finding of the learned Tribunal that "admittedly the respondent does possess the essential qualification required for the post." Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner is unjustified in re-opening the issue of the respondent's qualification.
6
Secondly, considering the fact that the respondent has been running from pillar to post for the last four years, considering the fact that the learned Tribunal had directed the petitioner to consider the respondent's case in accordance with law, considering the fact that the petitioner has failed to examine the respondent's case in accordance with the direction, in such peculiar circumstances, the learned Tribunal had no other option, but to emphatically direct the petitioner to appoint the respondent. Therefore, the anxiety of the petitioner that floodgates would be opened, is highly misplaced.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the impugned order.
10. A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that even in O.A.No.1496/2014, the petitioner had pleaded that the respondent does not have the essential qualification. Yet, in para 6 of the order dated 9.6.2015, the learned Tribunal has given a judicial finding that "admittedly the respondent does possess the essential qualification." The said judicial finding was subsequently upheld by this Court, by order dated, 9.12.2015. Thus, the issue whether the respondent possesses the essential 7 qualification, cannot be resurrected by the petitioner, before this Court, in the present writ petition.
11. Undoubtedly, the respondent has been fighting for her appointment to the post since 2014, i.e., for the last four years. She has knocked both at the doors of the learned Tribunal, as well as at the doors of this Court. Yet, her hope for justice has been bellied by the conduct of the petitioner. Considering these facts, the learned Tribunal, obviously, had no other option, but to positively direct the petitioner to appoint the respondent. Therefore, considering the peculiar facts of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified in issuing an absolute, and positive direction to the petitioner. Although generally the learned Tribunal would not be justified in issuing an emphatic direction for appointment, but the peculiar facts of the case left no option to the learned Tribunal, but to pass an absolute order. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.
12. However, by abundant caution, it is hereby clarified that this order is being passed, keeping in mind the unique facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, this order shall not form a precedent for future cases.
8
13. With these observations, this petition is, hereby, dismissed. The petitioner is directed to comply with this order within a period of two weeks.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE MD