Karnataka High Court
Sri. Santhosh. D. Nayak vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 January, 2025
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:174
WP No. 22745 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
WRIT PETITION NO. 22745 OF 2022 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. SANTHOSH D. NAYAK
S/O SRI. DAYANANDA NAYAK
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
PRESENTLY WORKING AS
ASSISTANT TEACHER (CBZ),
S.V.S. PRE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
(HIGH SCHOOL WING), KATAPADI
UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT
R/AT BELPATHRE HOUSE
POST PATLA, UDUPI 576107
UDUPI DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M.P. SRIKANTH, ADV.)
Digitally signed AND:
by
MARIGANGAIAH
PREMAKUMARI 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Location: HIGH BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
COURT OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
KARNATAKA
M.S. BUILDING
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE- 560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR PUBLIC
INSTRUCTIONS
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
NEW PUBLIC OFFICES
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
K.R. CIRCLE
BANGALORE -560 001.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:174
WP No. 22745 of 2022
3. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
SECONDARY EDUCATION
NEW PUBLIC OFFICES
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
K.R. CIRCLE
BANGALORE- 560 001.
4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
INSTRUCTIONS
UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT 576107.
5. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER
UDUPI TALUK
UDUPI DISTRICT- 576107.
6. S.V.S. VIDYA VARDHAKA SANGHA
KATAPADI
UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY- 576107.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ANITHA N., AGA FOR R1 TO R5
SRI B RAVINDRA PRASAD, ADV. FOR R6 - ABSENT)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ENDORSEMENT DATED 30.10.2021 PASSED IN C8(1)
SHA.SHI.AA.UNYA ARJI 58/11075/2018-19 BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNX-
AB; DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO APPROVE THE APPOINTMENT OF
THE PETITIONER WITH GRANT-IN-AID FROM THE DATE OF HIS
APPOINTMENT I.E., 03.09.2015 AND GRANT ALL SUCH
CONSEQUENTIAL FINANCIAL AND SERVICE BENEFITS INCLUDING
PAYMENT OF ARREARS OF SALARY AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:174
WP No. 22745 of 2022
ORAL ORDER
Petitioner, Assistant Teacher (CBZ) of sixth respondent is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by an endorsement dated 03.10.2021 (Annexure-AB) whereunder the approval of petitioner's appointment in the sixth respondent- Institution is rejected on the ground that the minority status granted to the sixth respondent-Institution is withdrawn under an endorsement dated 25.01.2018 (Annexure-AD).
2. The sixth respondent-Institution was granted minority status in the year 1994. In pursuance to the request of the sixth respondent seeking permission to fill up the post of Assistant Teacher, Science (CBZ), the second respondent accorded permission under Memorandum dated 15.07.2015 (Annexure-S) to fill up the post of Assistant Teacher, Science (CBZ) and in the said order itself, it was made clear that, since the sixth respondent-Institution is minority Institution, reservation -4- NC: 2025:KHC:174 WP No. 22745 of 2022 or roaster would not apply. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher by sixth respondent's appointment order dated 01.09.2015 (Annexure-P) and the sixth respondent forwarded the proposal for approval of petitioner's appointment under letter dated 03.09.2015 (Annexure-R). The said proposal was kept pending and in the meanwhile, showcase notice dated 13.07.2017 (Annexure-V) was issued to the sixth respondent calling upon to explain as to why minority status granted should not be withdrawn on the ground that the students strength of Konkani language community is reduced to 1.88% as against the minimum requirement of 25%. The sixth respondent is said to have submitted its explanation, but the respondents under endorsement dated 25.01.2018 (Annexure-AD) withdrew the minority status accorded to the sixth respondent. Thereafter, under endorsement dated 30.10.2021 (Annexure-AB), the proposal for approval of the petitioner's appointment is rejected only on the ground that the minority status granted to sixth respondent is withdrawn, hence the roaster would apply to -5- NC: 2025:KHC:174 WP No. 22745 of 2022 the appointment made by the sixth respondent-Institution. Hence, it was asked to make appointment in accordance with the reservation/roaster and to submit fresh proposal. Questioning the same petitioner is before this Court.
3. Heard the learned counsel Sri.M.P.Srikanth for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate Smt.N.Anitha for respondent Nos.1 to 5. There is no representation for the respondent No.6. Perused the writ petition papers.
4. Learned counsel, Sri.M.P.Srikanth for petitioner would submit that the action of the respondents in rejecting the proposal for approval of appointment of the petitioner vide endorsement dated 30.10.2021 (Annexure-AB) is wholly unreasonable, arbitrary and opposed to its own order dated 15.07.2015 wherein permission was granted to fill up the post of Assistant Teacher, Science (CBZ) with a specific observation that since the sixth respondent-Institution is a minority Institution, reservation or roster would not be applicable. -6-
NC: 2025:KHC:174 WP No. 22745 of 2022 Learned counsel would submit that the sixth respondent- Institution was a minority institution since 1994 to 2018, till the status of minority was withdrawn. Further, he submits that the appointment of the petitioner was in the year 2015 with the permission of the Department and as such, his appointment ought to have been approved. Further, learned counsel would submit that the show cause notice at Annexure-V dated 13.07.2017 which specifically refers to the visit of the BEO on 22.05.2017 and the students strength has come down only in the year 2017 and not earlier to that. Therefore, the order withdrawing the minority status cannot be applied retrospectively. Thus, learned counsel would pray for allowing the writ petition and to quash Annexure-AB dated 30.10.2021 with a direction to the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner to the sixth respondent-Institution.
5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate Smt.N.Anitha for respondent Nos.1 to 5 would support the impugned order passed and submits that since -7- NC: 2025:KHC:174 WP No. 22745 of 2022 the status of the sixth respondent-Institution as minority Institution is withdrawn, roaster would be applicable and the appointment of the petitioner is without following the roaster. Hence, the proposal is returned with a direction to fill up the post by following the roaster. Learned counsel would further submit that the students of minority community is reduced to 1.88% whereas the minimum requirement to treat an Institution as minority institution is 25% of the students belonging to that particular community. Since there is no required students strength, learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that rightly the minority status was withdrawn. Consequently, appointment of petitioner was not approved. Thus, she prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, the only point which would arise for consideration is as to, -8- NC: 2025:KHC:174 WP No. 22745 of 2022 "Whether the respondents are right in rejecting the proposal of the sixth respondent for approval of petitioner's appointment as Assistant Teacher, Science (CBZ) only on the ground that minority status of sixth respondent-Institution is withdrawn under order dated 25.01.2018?"
7. The answer to the above point would be in the negative and the action of the respondents in rejecting the proposal for approval of the petitioners appointment is unreasonable and arbitrary.
8. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that sixth respondent was declared as minority institution in the year 1994 and it continued to remain as minority institution till 25.01.2018, on which date the minority status of the sixth respondent was withdrawn. The request of the sixth respondent to make appointment to fill up the post of Assistant Teacher, Science (CBZ) was accorded under memorandum dated 15.07.2015 (Annexure-S) with the following conditions:
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:174 WP No. 22745 of 2022 J¸ï.«.J¸ï. «zÁåªÀzsÀðPÀ ¸ÀAWÀ PÀl¥Ár GqÀĦ ªÀ®AiÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ f¯Éè EªÀgÀ ªÀw¬ÄAzÀ £ÉqÀAiÀÄÄwÛgÀĪÀ J¸ï.«.J¸ï. ¥ÀzÀ« ¥ÀƪÀð PÁ¯ÉÃdÄ (¥ËæqsÀ±Á¯Á «¨sÁUÀ) PÀl¥Ár, GqÀĦ ªÀ®AiÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ f¯Éè F ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄ°è SÁ°¬ÄgÀĪÀ ¸ÀºÀ ²PÀëPÀgÀÄ «eÁߣÀ (¹.©.gÀhÄqï)-01 ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¨sÀwð ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä G¯ÉèÃR (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) ªÀÄvÀÄÛ (8) gÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉñÀzÀAvÉ ªÀiÁ£ÀzÀAqÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ¥ÀÆgÉÊPÉAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, F ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄ°è£À SÁ° ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ F PɼÀPÀAqÀ µÀgÀvÀÄÛUÀ½UÉ M¼À¥Àr¹ ¨sÀwð ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä C£ÀĪÀÄw ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVzÉ.
¢£ÁAPÀ:
PÀæªÀÄ ºÀÄzÉÝ SÁ° ºÀÄzÉÝ GzÀ㫹zÀ
«µÀAiÀÄ 20.06.1995 gÀAvÉ
¸ÀASÉå ¸ÀASÉå «ªÀgÀgÀ
«ÄøÀ¯Áw
²æà gÀvÁßPÀgï ºÉ¨Áâgï
¸ÀºÀ ²PÀëPÀgÀÄ EªÀgÀ ªÀÄwÃAiÀÄ C®à
¢£ÁAPÀ: ¸ÀºÀ ²PÀëPÀgÀÄ ¸ÀASÁåvÀ
01 01 «eÁߣÀ ±Á¯ÉAiÀiÁzÀÝjAzÀ
31.01.2011 gÀAzÀÄ
(¹.©.gÀ
(¹.©.gÀhÄqï) «ÄøÀ¯Áw
ªÀAiÉÆà ¤ªÀÈwÛ¬ÄAzÀ C£Àé¬Ä¸ÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
vÉgÀªÁzÀ ºÀÄzÉÝ
9. The third respondent accorded permission to fill up the post of Assistant Teacher, Science (CBZ) with the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:174 WP No. 22745 of 2022 specific observation that since the sixth respondent- Institution is minority institution, reservation/roster would not be applicable. The petitioner was appointed in pursuance to the said permission under appointment letter dated 01.09.2015 (Annexure-P) and the proposal for approval of petitioner's appointment by the sixth respondent was forwarded on 03.09.2015 (Annexure-R). As on the said date, the sixth respondent-Institution was a minority institution and was entitled to the benefits which flow to a minority institution. The show cause notice dated 13.07.2017 was issued to sixth respondent as to why its minority status should not be withdrawn on the ground that its strength of Konkani language students has been reduced to 1.88% as against the required 25% of students strength belonging to the linguistic minority and subsequently the minority status was withdrawn under an endorsement dated 25.01.2018 (Annexure-AD). Till that date, minority status of sixth respondent-institution was continued as minority institution.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:174 WP No. 22745 of 2022
10. A perusal of the show cause notice at (Annexure-V) dated 13.07.2017 indicates that the show cause notice was based on the BEO's report on his visit to sixth respondent-Institution on 20.05.2017; the student strength was reduced only during the year 2017 and it is not earlier to that. Therefore, on the ground that status of minority of sixth respondent-Institution was withdrawn on 25.01.2018, the respondents ought not have rejected the proposal for approval of appointment of the petitioner forwarded on 03.09.2015. For the fault of the respondents in keeping the proposal of approval for years together, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer. If the proposal of the sixth respondent for approval of the petitioner's appointment was taken up for approval within a reasonable time, rejecting his case on the ground that minority status of sixth respondent-Institution was withdrawn in the year 2018 would not have arisen.
11. Moreover, withdrawal of minority status of sixth respondent under endorsement dated 25.01.2018 cannot
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:174 WP No. 22745 of 2022 be given retrospective effect. Further, appointment of petitioner pursuant to permission granted under Memorandum dated 15.07.2015 (Annexuer-S) cannot be nullified on a subsequent event of withdrawal of minority status.
12. Thus, I am of the view that, action of the respondents is unreasonable and arbitrary. Hence, the following:
ORDER
a) The endorsement at Annexure-AB bearing No.¸ÀASÉå: ¹8(1) ±Á²C G£ÁåCfð 58/11075/2018-19 dated 30.10.2021 is quashed with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for approval of appointment as forwarded by the sixth respondent-Institution under letter dated 03.09.2015 (Annexure-R) and approve his appointment, if he is otherwise eligible, taking note of the fact that as on
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:174 WP No. 22745 of 2022 the date of his appointment, sixth respondent-Institution was a minority institution and in the light of the permission accorded by the third respondent in terms of the memorandum dated 15.07.2015 (Annexure-S).
b) With the above observations, writ petition stands allowed.
Sd/-
(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE NC CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 64