Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka Residential vs Mounesh on 7 November, 2022
Bench: G.Narendar, P.N.Desai
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.DESAI
WRIT APPEAL NO.545/2021
BETWEEN:
THE KARNATAKA RESIDENTIAL
EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS SOCIETY
REPRESENTED BY ITS
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
NO.8, KARNATAKA SAHAKARA
MARATA MANDALI BUILDING,
1, 6 & 7TH FLOORS,
CUNNINGHAM ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560052.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI Y.R.SADASHIVA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI SIDHARTH BABURAO, ADV.)
AND:
1. MOUNESH
S/O CHANNAPPA ARASUR
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
OCC: MATHEMATICS TEACHER,
REG NO.169709,
KAVERI STREET, 1ST MAIN,
2ND CROSS, UDAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560016
2
2. NAGARAJA K
S/O VIRUPAKSHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
OCC: MATHEMATICS TEACHER,
REG NO.229688,
KAVERI STREET, 1ST MAIN,
2ND CROSS, UDAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560016
3. SHARANABASAPPA
S/O GURANNA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
OCC: SCIENCE (CBZ) TEACHER,
REG NO.228937,
KAVERI STREET, 1ST MAIN,
2ND CROSS, UDAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560016
4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
BANGALORE-560001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RATNA N.SHIVAGOGIMATH AND
SRI SHIVAYOGESH SHIVAYOGIMATH, ADVS. FOR R1 TO R3,
SRI H.R.SHOWRI, AGA FOR R4.)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE,
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020,
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN
W.P.NO.15280/2015 AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WRIT
PETITION AS NOT MAINTAINABLE ETC.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR "PRELIMINARY
HEARING" THIS DAY, G.NARENDAR J, DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
3
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned Senior counsel Sri. Y. R. Sadashiva Reddy along with Sri.Sidharth Baburao, learned counsel for the appellant - Institution and Smt. Ratna N. Shivayogimath and Sri. Shivayogesh Shivayogimath, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.
2. This intra Court appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P.No.15280/2015.
3. The facts are not in dispute. The only dispute that is raised by the appellant-Institution is the proportionate weightage for partially completed year. The issue is raised on the basis of the Cadre and Recruitment Regulations, which provides for grant of 5% weightage for every completed year of service.
4. Learned Senior counsel has placed a memo before the Court dated 07.11.2022 enclosing therewith a copy of the order dated 21.03.2013 passed in a batch of 4 Writ Appeals and the lead Writ Appeal being W.A.No.31346/2012 whereby, the Co-ordinate Bench has been pleased to up-held the order of learned Single Judge rejecting the writ petition seeking to regularize and absorb them in their respective posts and to pay salary and other service benefits on par with similarly situated Government Teachers with the following order:-
"5. All the writ appeals are accordingly disposed of in terms of the judgment dated 21.02.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.5127/12 and W.A.Nos.5183-61/12 with connected appeals. The operative portion of the judgment dated 21.2.2013 reads thus:
"The writ appeals filed by the appellant- Society are dismissed. The service weightage shall be awarded to those teachers who are in service as on the date when the Cadre and Recruitment Regulations came into force. The appellant shall accommodate the respondents without disturbing the candidates who have already been selected by the appellant."
However, there shall be no order as to costs." 5
5. A Chart in a Tabular Form is also produced, wherein the details of various petitioners including private respondents herein and the Chart provides for the details of the name of the persons, the subject against which the application is made, the Institution where he/she has discharged duties earlier, writ appeal number, number of years of service put-in, marks secured in the entrance exam and the weightage marks given, total marks secured, cut-off marks and the category against which they have applied.
6. On perusing the marks secured, it is seen that respondent Nos.1 to 3 have secured 57.11, 58.5 and 45.96 respectively and the cut-off marks are 63.45, 63.3 and 61.35 respectively. Interestingly, the weightage marks have not been added. If the weightage marks, as settled by this Court i.e., at the rate of 5% per year is calculated then respondent Nos.1 and 2 would be entitled to 15 % and respondent No.3 would be entitled to 20 %. 6
7. Learned Senior counsel would contend that respondents have served the Institution for a truncated period and not for a fully completed year and in the light of the Cadre and Recruitment Regulations, which provides for awarding of weightage marks only for completed year, the respondents would be entitled to 10, 10 and 15 marks.
8. Even if the same are taken as correct, for the sake of arguments, even then the respondents would fairly secure more than the cut-off marks and thereby render them eligible for consideration. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the instant writ appeal would not survive for consideration.
9. If the marks secured by respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the weightage marks even if calculated for 2 years each, respondent No.1 would have secured 67.11 marks and the cut-off being 63.45, respondent No.1 is entitled to be appointed. Respondent No.2 would have secured 68.5 marks and the cut-off being 63.3, respondent No.2 is entitled to be appointed.
7
10. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 would invite the attention of the Court to Annexure-G (running page No.93) of the writ appeal being service particulars issued by the Principal of the School and would point out that respondent No.3 has been in service from 2006-2007 to 2011-2012 and if the service which is alleged to have been truncated in the year 2006-2007 and 2010-2011 are not counted, even otherwise, he has completed four years of continuous service.
11. The said document is not disputed by the appellant-Institution. If that be the case, then respondent No.3 would be entitled for weightage of marks for the year 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2011-12. In all, he would be entitled to 20% weightage marks. In that event, if 20 marks is added to the marks obtained by him in the qualifying examination, the total marks would come to 65.96, which is well above the cut-off marks which is 61.35. Hence, respondent No.3 is also entitled to be appointed. 8
12. We make it clear that the issue of awarding of weightage marks for partially completed year of service is not decided in these appeals as the respondents are even otherwise entitled to be appointed. The fact also remains that they have already been appointed subject to the result of the writ petition.
In that view of the matter, the Writ Appeal does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE dn/-
CT-HR