Karnataka High Court
Baleshi S/O Yellappa Naik vs Karnataka University Dharwad on 9 March, 2012
Author: N.K.Patil
Bench: N.K.Patil
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 9
T H
DAY OF MARCH, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.PATIL
W.P. NO.1219/2006(S-RES)
BETWEEN:
BALESHI, Sb YELLAPPA NAIK
(B.Y. NAIK)
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
0CC: LECTURER,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS
READER UNDER C.A. SCHEME,
BANGALORE UNIVERSITY
BANGALORE 560 056.
(BY SRI. F.V. PATIL, ADV) PETITIONER
AND:
1. KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY
DHARWAD 580 003
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER
SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUILDING,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE 560 001.
RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. P.H. GOTKHINDI, HCGP FOR
R2.
SRI. MALLIKARJUN S. HIREMATH,
ADV. FOR Ri)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UN
DER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION
OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ADVERTISEMENT DATED 24.
122005 ISSUED BY Ri VIDE
ANN-E TO THE WP. AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON
FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY
, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
In the instant case, the petitio ner is assailing the correctness of the advertiseme nt dated 24/12/2005 in NoKVV/BDA/JAHIRATHU/2OO5/5 91 issued by the 1 s t respondent vide Annexure "E"
and has further sought a mandamus directing the first respondent University to issue corrigendum and to sho w the post of reader in English reserved for Schedu led Tribe and continue the process of selection thereof.
2. The petitioner is the holder of Master of Arts in English and he has also comple ted Master of Philosophy(M. Phil.) and Doctor of Philosophy(Ph.D) and now he is / ----
3working in Bangaiore University. He belo ngs to schedule tribe. To show that he belongs to schedu led tribe, he has produced caste certificate as per Annexu re "A". The first respondent University in the direct selection of Lecturers, Readers and Professors done in the year 1987 and 1994 did not follow the roaster system and also it did not fill up backlog vacancies reserved for schedu led caste and scheduled tribes. In this regard the sec ond respondent held an enquiry and obtained a report and after verifying the report it was found that various posts reserved for scheduied castes and scheduled tribes bot h In teaching and non teaching staff of first respondent Uni versity were not filled-up and were treated as backlog vacancies. As per the enquiry report dated 21/01/200 3, the second respondent passed an order Indicating backiog vacancies meant for scheduled castes, schedu led tribes both In teaching and non-teaching staff and a direction was Issued to fill-up backlog vacancies by followi ng the Karnataka State Clvii Services(Unflhled vacancies reserved for the persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the 4 Scheduled Tribes) (Special Recruitment) Rules, 2001(hereinafter referred as "Th e Special Recruitment Rules, 2001"). The second respondent made a thorough investigation regarding the pos ts reserved for scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, subjec t wise and indicated the reservation of Professors, Reade rs and Lecturers posts means for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes and the same was sent to the University for compliance asking it to fill up those posts pursuant to the Special Recruitment Rules, 2001. In pursuance of the same, the first respondent University on 24/03/2003 issued an advertisement for filling up of backlog vacancies in respect of teaching faculty. Pursuant to the said advertisement, as the petitioner is M.A., M.Phil, and Ph.D. holder in English and as the post of Reade r in English reserved for scheduled tribe, he forwarde d his application through proper channel. True copy of the recommendation by the Bangalore University for having forwarded the applicaton dated 09/04/2003 on 12/04/200 3 is produced as Annexure f In pursuance 1 of the advertisement dated 24/ 03/2003 5 vlde Annexure SC", the first respondent Univer sity did not fiikUp the posts to which the petitioner has made his application, on the other hand, same was postponed.
However, again on 24/12/2005 another adverti sement has been issued wherein post of Reader in Engiish has been reserved for scheduled caste, rural candidate indicating that the candidates who have applied earlier pursuant to the advertisement dated 24/03/2003 can also apply and make fresh appiication and It Is submItted that the petitioner could not apply to the post of Reader in English pursuant to the subsequent advertIsem ent dated 24/12/2005 since the said post has not been reserved for scheduled tribe as indicated in earlier adverti sement. It Is submitted that the second respondent after making thorough investigation has reserved the bac kiog post in respect of Reader in English for scheduled trIb e and rightly in the year 2003, the first respondenteUniversity reserved the said post to scheduled tribe. Now withou t any basis, in order to heip their own candIdates, both the Syndicate as well as the Registrar have taken step s to change the 6 reservation made in respect of Reader in English from scheduled tribe to scheduled caste and also it has been indicated that the said post Is reserved for rural candidate.
It is most respectfully submitted tha t the posts of Professors and Readers has to be filled among in-service candidates. The question of applicability of rural candidate does not arise so far as posts of Reader s and Professors are concerned. The said reservation Is also totally Illegal and without authority of law. It is sub mItted that the petitioner has been deprived of his righ t to be considered for appointment to the post of Reader in Engiish by the illegal action of the first respondent.
The advertisement vide Annexure-"E" is contrary to the eari ier advertisement vlde Annexure-"B" and Is liable to be set aside at the threshold. Respondent No.1 University does not have jurisdiction to alter the same as It Is in violation of roaster point and ArtIcle 16(4) of the Constitu tion of India. BeIng aggrieved by the Illegal action of the first respondent University, the petitioner havIng left with no other 7 alternative and efficacious remedy , has filed this petition seeking appropriate relief.
3. Per contra, the first responden t University has ffled its detailed statement of obj ections dated 14/08/2006 wherein it is specifically stated in paragraph 5 that apart from the post of reader in English which is now reserved for Scheduled Caste(rural) catego ry vide notification dated 24/12/2005, the backlog post of Reader in English reserved for ST category which was identified earlier, still remain and the same would be notified in future, Hence, the question of changing the res ervation from ST category to Scheduled Caste category does not arise and the said contention of the petitioner is baseless and is liable to be rejected. It is the further case of the University that as per the reservation rules vide G.O . dated 22/11/2002, the post of Reader in English under Sch eduled Caste category has to be filled up by a rural candidate. Similarly, the contention of the petitioner tha t the posts of Professors and Readers are to be fille d up only by in-service 8 candidates is also not sustainable and is liable to be rejected. It Is their case that they hav e not violated any roaster point under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India as alleged by the petitioner and the said contention is liable to be rejected.
4. After careful perusal of the statement s made by the first respondent, It emerg es that the re advertisement Issued for filIng up the post notified In the corrigendum is sustainable in law.
5. It is the specific case of the first res pondent University that, the back log post of Reader In English reserved for ST category which wa s identified earlier still remaIns and the same would be not ified in future and the question of changing the reservatio n from ST category to Scheduled Caste category does not ari se, as the same has been made In pursuance of the res ervation rules vide G.O. dated 22/11/2002 and the post of reader in English In Scheduled Caste category has to be filled up by a rural 9 candidate and they have not violated any roaster. Hence, the prayer sought in W.P. may be rejected .
6. In the light of the statements made in paragraph 6 of the statement of obj ections by the first respondent University, the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted as first respondent University has categorically stated that the back log vacancies in Reader in English still remains and same would be notified in future. As and when it is notified by the first respondent, it is open for the petitioner to file an application and the same will be considered by the respond ent authorities and the relief sought is premature in natu re. Therefore without going into merits or demerits of the cas e, writ petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of reservin g liberty to the petitioner to file an application whe n the said post is notified for filling up of the backlog post reserved for ST category, if he is found otherwise elig ible. In such an event, the university is directed to consider the same and I 10 pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and dispose of the same expeditiously.
With these observations, writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd! JUDGE kmv