Karnataka High Court
Sri B T Krishnamurthy S/O Late Thimmaiah vs Sri Basaveswara Education Society (R) on 11 July, 2011
Bench: V.G.Sabhahit, B.Manohar
order, the pe':itio11e1* got himself impieaded as a party" to the said proceedings. The EAT by its or<:1erV.vVr:T_eii.ed 3»12~2oo2 allowed EAT No.15/rsse and appointment of the peritioner ishelpd tohe '= improper and directed respondents f£":md'»3 "eo"'reinr:'s:a"%:ee
the 4!" respondent into sere_iee.. as st }eetur'er "i,I1"v.HiStO1'y -. * and to pay the arrears. of salary:
:3. Being sggrie3¢ed::'hj}:the 132002, the Respondeniis" petitioner flied €:7§"Es.P;"§1388/2003 respectively before'h'*_f£hi.s Court by its order dated. 14~1_1_-<20--O"3 the revision petitions as the sa-fine are not InVair--:§--ainab1e. Immediately thereafter, the p§f_ti~o¢§;:§§r:.'iir§e--_W.p.No.52eos/zoos and respondents 1 énaei 3 f:£.eei'§--j€§,P,No.542o 1 gzeos. The appellants in V§iA..No.}865/2965 filed V.,V___';R?.P.Ns.§42G1/2838 ehahenging the very sarhe order 8 dated 3422002 passed by the Educational Tribunal made in EAT No.16/2006. In the xreffits "
they have eeniended that the appointed on parttime basis :0 Ve.r_12§:¥i)1.e him. 1:0, teaching experience and tie, x"appoint:fie11fi_: eiidef was V issued to him and as History Lecturer. For Lecturer' an adV*ertiser:1ef§t:}gvas1A._iss:se:d '$95. Pursuant to the said '*4:t1e1V'fesp§0ndent appeared for the not selected and one Malleseapps as History Lecturer. The§'e21fi;er 'V sei'v:i1<:e ef the 4?" respendent was " €'[is%e:>r1'fif11t_1fer;1. and no terminaticm order was issued in fa;é;n;;fir-vV4:'e.fV_ 4"? respondent. The oral order of tefmin._e1i10i'i had been questioned before the BAT. R AB.ef40:'eV"'e;pproaehing the EAT, the 4": respondent ffied "'V§¥V;PA;N0,3177O/1995 before this Ceurie The said Writ V' "":pet:i't:e:1 has been dismissed er: 29~1€}»1§95 as the same is nsi. maintainabie. '§'hereefier,, Beg? Apgesl M 'M ~ mm %V\:'\\ 2W3?
i 9 No.16/1996 was filed under Section 94(1) Karnataka Education Act. In ihe appeal, I.A.Ne.}i for eondenatien of of interim order. The EAT jgranted. an 'er*de:f'c3n'*-- 1'7~12~1996 restraining the frdrn 3PP0i1'1fiT1§ any P€YS0'I%_.?'Q History in the place of the at their Institu1:i0n._ .:_"eeee1'1d..T.fdrespondent was direeted'n€otV§:'d" or accept any such appoinRtm_e.nf»:'i.f respondents 1 and 3 pending appeal. Bx/Ialleshappa who wa;3_§'S'e}eeted"' Lecturer resigned to the said post. F11%'ih§%I'::,'. the-._State Government direcied the respondents up the Post ef Lecturer from the and Scheduled Tribe Category since
2 €:1e._EnesJtiiut10n run by the petitiener is admitted {:0 the dedléidry grant on 7-1»-1995. In View of that, an advertieernené: was isssded inviting appiieatiene fer the pee: ef E-Eisfiery Lecturer heienged '(es the SEC eznegerye in g' \ 1 {[3 pursuance to the said notifieatieh, the"'petitiene: 11%;"
W.P.Ne.528Q3/2003 was selected.
has been made in aeeorciémee with the hiiesegxfaiion policy of the State G0\5_er:1rne:1t.u':A'
5. The 'Jboth the writ petitions September 2006 dismie.ge'd» a holding that the appoihittllheht' V to the interim order dated 1}7:!1-«f2hh~19§6 fztetdeh' in EAT No.16/1996 and also AAc'1é1tee:it.«'1~S?!~2OO1 wherein the order dated *£2'g?:20:QQ4"*;eeassed by the 211" respondent has been et3_.§ed.v_ E Being aggrieved by the order dated 20?" September ~vt,t.w%1e:i»:e{:;e, the petitiener in w.p.No.52e<:33/zeee and petitioners inW.}?.No.55i2Oi/2OG3 fiked these two aepealeg
7. S:r'i.V.Lal«:shminarayana, learned ee':§.:f:--s:e'}~.t ~ appearing for the appellant Ru contended that the Order passeel'l'.by;..A_Atfile Judge dlSf11iSSifIg the wrii: filed b;{Athe"';_;§'pellant ° V is eontrary to law. The.V.lea1fn'ed. Jildge hes failed to consider that there more than 1 year 6 montliee vegiltleal. The EAT without for condonation of de1ay,,j"lipié;ssé}:V%_V otl_"lVI'.A§.No.ll on 17-124996. Thereettiteii';' itltppeal without condoning the delay... "cllfiser.vatl'0Ii'"t)f the learned Single Judge that tl1Ve"clel.;3;3z ifgny iémcileemed to be condoned is contrary to VuQ.~fv:l_ithe Limitation Act. The EAT has to e0:1_sid_er' question of limitation first, and then pass it .fJ1fd€1'S7{):I1 merit. The 41" respondent wag appointed as 3 "".flg:l>e::*-ti-'ti1:1'1e Lecture? on ?.8~€3»l99€) and he was relieved " '-"train duty 0:: 22~"?~l995 since regular appointment te the poet of Elistory Lecturer was matte. in View at the Eagw laid if} 'Jl'vlABEVE's eaee, hie eetvieee :1 ggart-time Z'?
Lecturer earmet be regularised. This aspect matter was also not considered by the learrited Judge. Further contended that sjpee the"appQif1tn3e:1t' of 49* respondent is an irregiz-lat?';;:ppCi.:1I:,r1ie1it;"-..__t1m:A question of regularising hisdsemiee does net 'a.:"'iee.M The , * order passed by the by the learned Single Judge Pursuant to the notificattQ11l'issue'-d 'J1 and 3 the appellant post of History eppdintment, he has been wor1<it11"'g at appointment was approved by the State on 12.7.2000. At this length 'd V' _ oft-iiifne-,.phiVs seI'Vieee~L1ave been terminated and he will be injury and sought for setting aside t.h.e'VVerde.f' pglssed by the learned Single Judge as well as the e:°d_er passed by EAT in Appea1.N0. 16/ 19%. .. The Eeareed eeunsei appearing fer the appeiiants :2: 1¥L%.N<>. 1865/2008 eentezided that the csrder passed l5 respondent filed W. F'.No. 3 1 77'C) / 1995 before _ seeking for reinstating him for___.th_e po'st"'u 'v 2 Lecturer. The said writ petition di_smtssedte-._.oiit;e_t 2Q--10~l998, on the groundllthatp rnaintainable. lrnrnediately appeal before the EAT obtained" directing the respondents 11 In spite of the the respondents 1 -- History Lecturer and appointed one Thereafter, Malleshappa resigned for the s'aid*--.pos"t. Fresh notification was issued year and selected the appellant in the appointment is made in vtol_atiotr_o:f-- the interim order dated l7~l2~199£3. The AStatev.v__AG0vernment by its order dated l2~7~2000
--..Vapp«r:>Ved the appointment of the appellant. The fritlli = ..----respondent filed I.A.Nof? in BA'? No.16/l996 and obtained internn stay of the order dated l2~'?~2OQQ, T he order dated l2~?~2§GG has been questioned in on 26--5~199C). the respondents 1 to mentitmed that the appointment,_}:)_eing;' .4 post of History Leeturet' 0:1 part,~time1't)a3is'tt0r"t.einp§1:gfj,:}_' arrangement. 'Pursuant to t.he"~appei1'xtn1en't_, t=;e«x,s;Qr1{ed _ I for a period ef more then 2t.;')p'e%1:fsVAV,tihat the Sm respondent~InStitutic$t}' salary grant on 7~1~1995§., the names of Lecturers Qfetcimitting to salary on 9~'7~1999. The State ttetifieatton dated 21¢-L1995 made C165?' jttiatf. the tfteservation policy of the State {}éw*eri1111en_t reg:it'*Ciihg appointment of teaching and made on or before 1~6~1992 véexje left: undisturbed. in the instant: case, xas:imizt*:e::d1y the -aw": respondent was appeinted as History tt g_VL;e<::iu1"er as 28~6~199C} and the reeervation peitey of ~--State Geavernmertt is not appiieable for the post held by the 4" respzmdent, There is no impediment for the Eeepezzéezlte E and 3 to f0:'"wa:"d the name ef 4* 5%' fé.
i 24 order passed by the BAT. The appellants have not made out any casa E0 intnirftire with the order passed lsarned Single Judge in an intra cQuri"""afjg3§a3A.:
Accordixsgly, we pass the followingzm _ ORDER . 3 ' Both the Writ appeals ..e;iisIIi'1€~$ed._ A%?%i%%75'¥éé§%