Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka By Its Principal ... vs K. Govindappa S/O Krishnappa And The ... on 27 January, 2006
Equivalent citations: ILR2007KAR2315
Bench: Chief Justice, R. Gururajan
JUDGMENT Cyriac Joseph, C.J.
1. This writ appeal is filed against the Judgment dated 15-2-2005 in W.P. No. 1469/2003 which was allowed by the learned single Judge. The appellants are respondents 1 to 3 in the writ petition. The 1st respondent herein is the petitioner and the 2nd respondent is the 4th respondent respectively in the writ petition. The writ petitioner Sri. K. Govindappa was appointed as a lecturer in History in an aided private college owned and managed by the 4th respondent Vinayaka Rural Education Society, Hagalavadi, Gubbi Taluk, Tumkur District, with effect from 10-7-1994. However, the Government of Karnataka refused to approve the appointment of the petitioner on the ground that the appointment was in violation of the roster policy and that he was appointed in a post reserved for a scheduled caste candidate. Though the petitioner filed a review petition before the Government contending that there was only a single post of lecturer in History in the college and therefore the reservation policy did not apply to the post to which the petitioner was appointed. The Government rejected the claim of the petitioner. Hence the petitioner filed the writ petition praying for quashing the orders passed by the Government and for directing the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 21-7-1994, the date on which he joined duty, A statement of objection was filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. The respondents contended as follows:
Even though the management is running only one College, has to maintain the roster while making appointments taking into consideration, the entire cadre of lecturers, irrespective of subjects. The 4th respondent is having one college and there are 6 posts of lecturers. Hence, the post of lecturers in History cannot be considered as a single post. It is mandatory on the part of the management to fill up the vacant post as per the reservation policy of the Government by maintaining roster policy to the cadre of lecturers.
However, the learned single Judge rejected the above contention of the respondents and held that since the post of lecturer in History was a single post, the reservation policy did not apply to the appointment to the said post and hence the 4th respondent management was not bound to reserve the post for a member of the Scheduled Caste. In taking the above view, the learned single Judge relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Dr. Chakradhar Paswan v. State of Bihar and Ors. . According to the learned single Judge the appointment of the petitioner was just and legal. Accordingly, the impugned orders passed by the Government were quashed and respondents 1 to 3 were directed to pass appropriate orders regarding approval of the appointment of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the decision of the learned single Judge, respondents 1 to 3 have filed this appeal.
2. The only questions that arise for consideration in this case are:
(i) Whether the post of lecturer in History to which the writ petitioner was appointed was a single post; and
(ii) If the said post was a single post, whether the 4th respondent management was hound to reserve the post for a member of the Scheduled Caste as contended by respondents 1 to 3 in the writ petition.
3. It is not disputed by the appellants (respondents 1 to 3 in the writ petition) that the post of lecturer in History to which the writ petitioner was appointed was a single post of lecturer in the Department of History in the college of the 4th respondent. However, it is contended that the said single post of lecturer in History cannot be taken in isolation for the purpose of reservation and that all the posts in the cadre of lecturers in the various departments/subjects in the college have to be taken together for the purpose of reservation. It is further contended that if all the posts in the cadre of lecturers in the various departments/subjects in the college are taken together, the posts to which the writ petitioner was appointed was not a single post and therefore the policy of reservation applied to the appointment to the said post. We do not find any merit in the above contention of the appellants in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Chakradhar Paswan v. State of Bihar and Ors. and the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Dr. Rajkumar v. Gulbarga University ILR1990 KAR 2125. In Dr. Chakradhar Paswan's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the High Court of Patna was right in holding that the reservation of post of Deputy Director (Homeopathic) amounted to 100% reservation which was impermissible under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India. (Refer paragraph 7 of the Judgment). In paragraph 16 of the Judgment the Supreme Court clearly stated as follows:
It is quite clear after the decision in Devadasan's case that no reservation could be made under Article 16(4) so as to create a monopoly. Otherwise, it would render the guarantee of equal opportunity contained in Articles. 16(1) and 16(2) wholly meaningless and illusory. These principles unmistakably lead us to the conclusion that if there is only one post in the cadre, there can be no reservation with reference to that post either for recruitment at the initial stage or for filling up a future vacancy in respect of that post. A reservation which would come under Article 16(4), pre-supposes the availability of at least more than one post in that cadre.
In paragraph 9 of the judgment the Supreme Court observed that the Government of India instructions clearly showed that there could he no grouping of one or more isolated posts for the purpose of reservation. To illustrate the point, the Supreme Court further stated that the Professors in medical colleges are carried on the same grade or scale of pay but the posts of Professor of Cardiology, Professor of Surgery or Professor of Gynaecology pertain to particular discipline and therefore each is an isolated post. Following the decision of the Supreme Court in Chakradhar Paswan's case, the Full bench of this Court in Dr. Rajkumar v. Gulbarga University, categorically stated that if there is only one post in the cadre of Professor or Reader or Lecturer in any subject, there can be no reservation at all, Paragraph 32 of the Judgment in Dr. Rajkumar's case is extracted hereunder:
The next question for consideration is about the method which should be adopted in providing reservation for the cadres of Professors, Readers and Lecturers for, though these posts are in different subjects they carry same designation and pay scale. Therefore the question is as to whether reservation has to be worked out in respect of such cadres, separately. This question is also no longer res Integra. This Court in the case of Dr. Krishna v. State of Karnataka, has held that in the case of teaching cadres though the designation and pay-scale of the posts of Professors, Readers and Lecturers in different subjects are one and the same, still having regard to the fact that the posts of Professors, Readers and Lecturers in each of the subject is distinct and separate, each subject has to be treated as independent unit for the purpose of recruitment and reservation. The said view stands confirmed by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Chakradhar. In view of this position in law, the only reasonable method of giving effect to reservation in the cadres in which the number of posts available is smaller, is by way of providing a reasonable roster. In fact, in view of the Judgment of this Court in Krishna, the State government by its order dated 28-1-1987 (Annexure-R1) prescribed a 100 point roster. The first 10 points prescribed are: (1) Scheduled Caste, (2) Scheduled Tribe, (3) General Merit, (4) Group-A of the backward classes, (5) Group-B of the backward classes, (6) Scheduled Caste, (7) General Merit, (8) Group 'C' of the backward classes, (9) Group 'D' of the backward classes and (10) General Merit and the roster continues upto 100 points. As number of posts available in each of the Departments in each of the cadres is generally less than ten, and once a person is appointed against a vacancy, normally he continues in service for several years, it appears to us that 100 point roster is unwieldly because, for the completion of the roster it might take a few centuries. The validity of that order is not challenged in this petition. We should however, observe that it would be reasonable to fix the roster for points as minimum as possible for cadres in which the posts available are only a few and therefore the roster requires to be reviewed and modified.
Whatever that may be, in view of the decision in the case of Chakradhar, if there is only one post in the cadre of Professor or Reader or Lecturer in any subject, there can be no reservation at all.
4. In the light of the above decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court we hold that there is no merit in the contention raised in this writ appeal and that the learned single Judge was right in allowing the writ petition. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellant could not point out any decision of this Court or the Supreme Court which nullified the effect of the decision in Dr. Rajkumar's case.
5. For the reasons stated above, we hold that there is no merit in the appeal and the appeal is dismissed. Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to pass necessary orders in accordance with law granting approval to the appointment of the writ petitioner as early as possible and at any rate within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.