Karnataka High Court
Smt. Shakira Yasmeen vs The Secretary & Ors on 25 June, 2019
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K.N.Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA
W.P.No.207299/2017 (S-RES)
Between:
Smt.Shakira Yasmeen
D/o Abdul Nabi,
Aged about 42 years,
Occ. Assistant Teacher,
Moraji Desai Residential (Minority),
Raichur, Dist. Raichur
R/o H.No.1-4-155/153,
Jyothi Colony, Near I.B.,
Raichur.
... Petitioner
(By Smt.Ratna N.Shivayogimath, Advocate)
And:
1. The Secretary,
Minorities Welfare Department,
Vikas Soudha, Bengaluru - 1.
2. The Director,
Minorities Welfare Department,
V.V.Towers, Bengaluru - 1.
3. The Executive Director,
Karnataka Residential Educational
2
Institutions Society,
No.8, MSB-1, 6 & 7 Floor,
Cunningham Road,
Bengaluru - 52.
4. The Secretary,
Karnataka Public Service Commission,
Bengaluru - 01.
... Respondents
(By Smt.Arati Patil, HCGP for R1 and R2;
Smt.Umadevi S.Babshetty Advocate for R3 and
Sri R.J.Bhusare, Advocate for R4)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ or
direction or order writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing
the impugned endorsement dated 31.03.2017 in No.Ka.
Va.Shi.Sa.Sa/Aadalitha/Ho.Sa.Ne/2016-17/103, issued by
3rd respondent vide Annexure-S; issue a writ or direction or
order writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the
respondents to consider the qualification of the petitioner as
equivalent to B.Ed. and as per Errata dated 8.12.2010 and
grant service weightage of 5% for each year in the
notification dated 27.4.2011 etc.
This petition coming on for preliminary hearing this
day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioner has completed the Rashtrabhasha Praveen Examination from Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha in the year 1993 and thereafter the petitioner has also passed Hindi Shikshak Examination 3 conducted by the Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board which is equivalent to Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.). The certificate issued by the Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board is at Annexure 'D'.
2. The petitioner was in fact appointed as a Hindi Teacher against the vacant post of Hindi Teacher in Morarji Desai Residential School, Raichur on honorarium basis in the year 2007 precisely on 21.07.2007. He was directed to work for the academic years as per Annexures 'F' 'G' 'H' 'J' and 'K' and since the date of appointment the petitioner has been serving as a Hindi Teacher in the above said residential school.
3. These above factual aspects are not in dispute. The third respondent in fact has issued a notification calling for direct appointment to fill up Group 'A' 'B' and 'C' posts and also technical and non- technical posts in various departments including the 4 institution where the petitioner was working i.e., Morarji Desai Residential School, Raichur, which was functioning under the Karnataka Residential Educational Institutions Society and as per Cadre and Recruitment Regulations and amended Regulations 2011.
4. When the weightage for the work done by the petitioner was not considered regarding the appointment as a Hindi Teacher, he approached this Court by way of writ petition in W.P.No.4758/2016 and in fact this Court in detail considering the said aspect directed the respondent No.3 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 08.04.2015 and 27.11.2015 as per Annexure 'M' and 'N' therein and to pass appropriate orders expeditiously within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. However, the point so far as the equivalent degree obtained by the petitioner was not raised in the said writ petition and no order was passed.
5
5. In pursuance of the said order, respondent No.3 has issued an endorsement dated 31.03.2017 which is impugned in this writ petition, wherein considering the directions of this Court in W.P.No.4758/2016 dated 02.01.2017, respondent No.3 has not at all considered with regard to the weightage to be given to the petitioner. On the other hand respondent No.3 has raised an objection that, the petitioner had no educational qualification for the said post of Hindi Teacher, on that ground her representation was rejected. In the endorsement, it is clearly stated that the petitioner has only completed Hindi Shikshak Course from Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board, which has issued a certificate and the said institution was not recognized as per Government Order No.ED/160/PTI/2003 dated 24.02.2004 and also further that, the representation of the petitioner is not in consonance with the notification issued by the respondent No.3 calling for the 6 appointment, to the effect that the petitioner has not passed PUC with Kannada language or in one of the regional language as one of the subject or any regional language as medium in PUC.
6. The said endorsement is virtually based on the notification issued by the government with reference to the educational qualification as per G.O.No.ED/125/PTI/2003 dated 16.08.2003. Under the said notification the Government has notified several institutions as recognized, in which the candidates have passed Hindi Shikshak Course and declared that they are only equivalent to B.Ed.Degree. Of course, the present Karnataka Secondary Education and Examination Board has not included as one of the institutions in the said notification. However, it is clear that the said notification is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Whatever may be the institution in which the qualification has been acquired but the question arises whether the petitioner has 7 passed the Hindi Shikshak Course or not. When Hindi Shikshak Course is declared to be equivalent to B.Ed. Degree in Hindi there cannot be any discrimination on the basis of such notification by the respondent No.3 in not considering the representation of the petitioner.
7. Now coming to the other important objections raised that, petitioner has not passed PUC with Kannada language as one of the regional languages Kannada as medium of instruction. This particular condition is not applicable so far as the petitioner is concerned, as the learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court that, the said notification of the Government of Karnataka has under
gone an amendment as on 08.12.2010 as per Annexure-V, wherein the Government has issued an errata dated 08.12.2010 in the following manner:
"In the Government Order
No.ED/125/PTI/2003, dated 16.08.2003
8
after paragraph 4 (2) the following shall be added viz-
'4(3) This order shall come into force
prospectively that is w.e.f. from
16.08.2003.'"
8. However, it is argued by the petitioner counsel that in the notification calling for the application for appointment of Teachers issued by the respondent No.3 the said amendment has not been carried forward. Therefore, the candidates who have passed Hindi Shikshak Course prior to 16.08.2003 the said notification being prospective in effect was not made applicable so far as petitioner is concerned in this case. This aspect has also not been properly taken into consideration by the respondent No.3.
9. Therefore, looking into the above said facts and circumstances, respondent No.3 has not applied his mind with reference to qualification of the petitioner and 9 also regarding, whether weightage should be given to the petitioner. Further, as I have already narrated the order in W.P.No.4758/2016 has not been properly understood by respondent No.3 and there is no whisper in the impugned order with regard to the weightage to be given to the petitioner. On the other hand, on some other grounds, the representation was rejected which is in my opinion, is not proper and correct. Hence the following order :
ORDER Order/endorsement dated 31.03.2017 in No.PÀ.ªÀ.².¸À.¸À/DqÀ½vÀ/ºÉÆ.¸À.£ÉÃ/2016-17/103 issued by the respondent No.3 is hereby quashed. Respondent No.3 is hereby directed to reconsider the representations of the petitioner dated 08.04.2015 and 27.11.2015 regarding the qualification of the petitioner and also weightage to be given to the petitioner, in the light of the above said observations made in the body of this order and also errata dated 08.12.2010 issued by the 10 Government and thereafter pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. However, the said exercise has to be done within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE sn/VNR Ct: RRJ