Karnataka High Court
Mahesh S/O Hanamaraddi Hebbal vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 August, 2017
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K.N. Phaneendra
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA
W.P. NO. 107160/2016 C/W W.P. NO. 107768/2016
& W.P. NOS. 107786-107787/2016 (S-RES)
IN W.P. NO. 107160/2016
BETWEEN:
MAHESH S/O HANAMARADDI HEBBAL,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
OCCN: WORKING AS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
OF LAW, KARNATAKA PROGRESSIVE
EDUCATION SOCIETY'S KPES LAW COLLEGE,
DHARWAD, R/O: "SHRIPOONRNA", #5/20-B,
VENKATAGIRI, SARASWATPUR,
DHARWAD-02, DIST: DHARWAD.
- PETITIONER
(BY SRI K.L. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF LAW, JUSTICE
AND HUMAN RIGHTS,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER,
DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
TECHNICAL EDUCATION BHAVAN,
PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.
:2:
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR,
DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
REGIONAL OFFICE, MINI VIDHAN SOUDHA,
DHARWAD.
4. KARNATAKA PROGRESSIVE EDUCATION SOCIETY'S
D.C. COMPOUND, DHARWAD-580 001,
DIST: DHARWAD, REPRESENTED BY
ITS PRESIDENT.
5. KPES LAW COLLEGE,
D.C. COMPOUND, DHARWAD-580 001,
DIST: DHARWAD, REPRESENTED BY
ITS PRINCIPAL.
- RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M. KUMAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R3,
SRI V.P. VADAVI & C.B. SHAKUNAVALLI,
ADVOCATES FOR R4 & R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 26.08.2015 VIDE
ANNEXURE-D & ETC.
IN W.P. NO. 107768/2016
BETWEEN:
RAMESH S/O DEVARADDI ONTIGODI,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC.: SECOND
DIVISIONAL CLERK, R/O ANUGRAHA
BUILDING, SARASWATHPUR, DHARWAD.
- PETITIONER
(BY SRI ARAVIND D. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF LAW, JUSTICE
:3:
AND HUMAN RIGHTS, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER,
DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
TECHNICAL EDUCATION BHAVAN,
PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR,
DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
REGIONAL OFFICE, MINI VIDHAN SOUDHA,
DHARWAD.
4. KARNATAKA PROGRESSIVE EDUCATION SOCIETY'S
D.C. COMPOUND, DHARWAD-580 001,
DIST: DHARWAD, REPRESENTED BY
ITS PRESIDENT.
5. KPES LAW COLLEGE,
D.C. COMPOUND, DHARWAD-580 001,
DIST: DHARWAD, REPRESENTED BY
ITS PRINCIPAL.
- RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M. KUMAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R3,
SRI V.P. VADAVI & C.B. SHAKUNAVALLI,
ADVOCATES FOR R4 & R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 26.08.2015 VIDE
ANNEXURE-B & ETC.
IN W.P. NOS. 107786-107787/2016
BETWEEN:
1. ISHWAR SHIVAPPA KOTI,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC: PEON,
R/O HEBBALLI AGASI GALLI ONI,
DHARWAD.
:4:
2. BASAVANTAPPA RUDRAPPA AVVANNAVAR,
DAGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC: PEON,
R/O KAMALAPUR JAMAGI ONI, DHARWAD.
- PETITIONERS
(BY SRI ARAVIND D. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF LAW, JUSTICE
AND HUMAN RIGHTS, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER,
DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
TECHNICAL EDUCATION BHAVAN,
PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR,
DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
REGIONAL OFFICE, MINI VIDHAN SOUDHA,
DHARWAD.
4. KARNATAKA PROGRESSIVE EDUCATION SOCIETY'S
D.C. COMPOUND, DHARWAD-580 001,
DIST: DHARWAD, REPRESENTED BY
ITS PRESIDENT.
5. KPES LAW COLLEGE,
D.C. COMPOUND, DHARWAD-580 001,
DIST: DHARWAD, REPRESENTED BY
ITS PRINCIPAL.
- RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M. KUMAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R3,
SRI V.P. VADAVI & C.B. SHAKUNAVALLI,
ADVOCATES FOR R4 & R5)
:5:
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 26.08.2015 VIDE
ANNEXURE-D & ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR HEARING ON
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsels for the petitioners, learned Government Advocate for respondents 1 to 3 and also learned counsel Sri C.B. Shakunavalli & V.P. Vadavi, for respondents 4 and 5.
2. The undisputed facts involved in this case are that, respondent No.4 has appointed the petitioner in W.P. No. 107160/2016 as Assistant Professor of Law; petitioner in W.P. No. 107768/2016 as Second Divisional Clerk; and petitioners in W.P. Nos.107786-107787/2016 as Peons. Thereafter the petitioners are working in the respective Colleges. The respondent No.1 has issued an order admitting certain law colleges to grant-in-aid along with respondent No.5. Respondents 4 and 5, in fact, forwarded the list of :6: teaching and non-teaching staff including the name of the petitioner for approval admitting their names to grant-in-aid. In fact, the respondent No.1 has passed an order (as per Annexures-D, B and D in the respective writ petitions) dated 26.08.2015 approving the list of the teaching staff and also non-teaching staff except the posts of Peon in the said order. On the contrary, the respondent No.1 has directed reservation of Posts for SC and ST as backlog vacancies. In fact, the petitioners being aggrieved by the said order submitted representations to the respondent No.1 through respondent No.5 and brought to their notice that the petitioner's name has to be included. In fact, he is also entitled for inclusion of his name in the approved list. But, inspite of such request, the respondent no.1 has not passed any orders hitherto. Subsequently, in view of the order passed by the respondent No.1, the respondent No. 4 has called for applications to fill up those posts reserved for SC/ST as backlog vacancies. The said order of the Government is called in question as well as the notification issued by the respondent No.4 in this regard. :7:
3. The learned counsels for the petitioners have relied upon an order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 10955/2012 dated 29.04.2015. The said case is on the similar footing. At paragraph Nos. 13 and 14 the Court has observed that:
"13. It is not disputed that the petitioner was appointed much prior to the institution having been brought under the grand-in-aid scheme of the Government and when by clause-9 of the said order dated 01.01.1996 itself it was provided that in case of non-compliance of the reservation policy, future vacancies of the institution would be treated as backlog vacancies meant to be filled up from amongst the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, I am of the opinion that the orders dated 12.01.2009 and 27.01.2012 passed by the respondents No.4 an 3 respectively deserve to be quashed and the petitioner would be entitled to be included amongst the teachers brought under the grand-in-aid list by order dated 01.01.1996.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of this Court dated 30.10.2001 passed in W.P. Nos.20635-636/1999, wherein also similar question was involved, and this Court, after considering the condition imposed with regtard to the reservation policy for future vacancies (as is laid down in the present case by clause-9 of the order dated 01.01.1996) allowed the writ petitions and directed the name of the petitioners therein to be included under the grand-in-aid list. On a perusal of the said judgment, I am of the opinion that though the facts of the aforesaid case may be slightly different but the ratio of the said judgment would apply to the facts of this case."
---
:8:
4. In view of the above said paragraphs this Court has already came to the conclusion that the Government ought to had provided an opportunity to the management to reserve the posts for SC/ST as backlog *vacancies in future if the *Corrected vide Court order dated vacancies are accrued or created by the management. If such 11/08/2017 Sd/-
an opportunity is given to the management the Government ought to have considered the name of the petitioners also in the same list to the respective posts as the petitioners were long back appointed in their respective cadres and have been working.
5. The learned Government Advocate on the basis of the above said factual aspects and the ruling noted above has no objection to reconsider the notification issued by the Government subject to the management makes a representation by giving an undertaking that positively the management will adhere to the direction issued by the Government and the management would reserve the posts in future as against the backlog to the SC/ST or for backward :9: classes according to law and the circulars of the Government and give opportunity to those classes in future, if any posts are created or if any posts became vacant in future.
6. In view of the above said submissions there is no legal impediment for this Court to direct the Government to consider the representation of the petitioners, if the said representations are once again sent by the management with the undertaking as noted above and the Government has to approve the posts of the petitioner and issue modified order on taking such undertaking by the management. Accordingly, the Government has to modify its order dated 26.08.2015 incorporating the name of the petitioners in the *Corrected vide approved list of *teaching and non-teaching staff. Court order dated 11/08/2017 Sd/-
The Government has to consider and pass appropriate orders within three months from the date of receipt of undertaking from the date of fresh representation of the : 10 : petitioner along with the undertaking of the management respondent No.4.
Writ petitions are accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE bvv