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 9TH DAY OF MARCH 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO. 5124/2007(S-RES)
BETWEEN:
BALESHI S/O YELLAPPA NAIK
(B.Y. NAIK)
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
0CC: LECTURER
PRESENTLY WORKING AS READER UNDER
C.A. SCHEME, BANGALORE UNIVERSITY
BANGALORE-560 056.
PETITIONER
(BY SRI : F V PATIL, ADV.)
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.AMBEDAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-0 1.
RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI : MALLIKARJUN S. HIREMATH, ADV. FOR Ri;
SRI P.R. GOTKHINDI, H.C.G.P. FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ADVERTISEMENT DT. 15.12.2006 ISSUED BY Ri VIDE
ANNEXURE-G TO THE WRIT PETITION SO FAR IT RELATES TO
READER IN ENGLISH AND TO DIRECT Ri TO CONSIDER THE
APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER WHICH HAS BEEN FILED ON
12.4.2003 PURSUANT TO ADVERTISMENT ANNEXURE-C AND
THE APPLICATION ANNEXURE-D AND TO TAKE AN
APPROPRIATE DECISION.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
In the instant petition, petitioner is assailing the correctness of Advertisement bearing No. KVV/BOA/JAHIRATHU/ 2006/847, dated 15.12.2006, issued by 1st respondent, vide Annexure-B, so far it relates to Reader in English. He has further sought for a direction to respondent No.1 to consider his application which has been flied on 12.04.2003 pursuant to Advertisement Annexure-C and the application Annexure-D and to take an appropriate decision in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The grievance of petitioner in the instant petition is that the Social Welfare Department has identified the post of a Reader in English as a backlog vacancy which is not filled right from the 3 year 1995 and the University by creating a confusion has postponed the filling of the post by changing the category. Thereby, it has deprived ST persons from working as Readers. Now the respondent No. 1 issued a re-advertisement categorising the reader post of English as a SC Women. Therefore, he was constrained to question the correctness of Re-advertisement dated 15.12.2006, vide Annexure-G, issued by respondent No.1 University, seeking appropriate reliefs as stated supra.
3. The specific ground taken by petitioner in the instant petition is that, as per the provisions of Universities Act, the respondent No. 1 is duty bound to comply the directions issued by the department to fill the backlog post. Instead of complying with the directions, respondent No.1 wants to fill the backlog vacancies, contrary to the directions issued by the Government and also wrongly interpreting the interim order granted by this Court, the Re-advertisement Annexure-G is liable to be quashed. The respondent No.2 in his order dated 21.01.2003 after thorough investigation has found that the direct selection done by respondent No.1 in the years 1987 and 1984, reservation policy /7 ____ 4 has not been followed and various posts have been filled up and also it has been indicated in the order vide Annexure-B that.
the backlog post in respect of Reader in English has been reser ved for the Scheduled Tribe. Accordingly, the 1 respondent University rightly reserved the post of Reader in English for Schedule d Tribe.
However, on an extraneous ground the respondent No.1 did not fill up the said post. Now in order to help their own candidates, the respondent No.1 University has taken steps to reserve the said post to Woman candidate. As the reservation is impermissible in view of the fact that the posts of Professo rs and Readers shall be filled among in-service candidates, the impu gned advertisement vide Annexure-G is totally illegal, unsu stainable and it is liable to be quashed.
4. As against this, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 University has filed its detailed obje ctions after duly serving the same to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, wherein it has specifically stated that apar t from the post of Reader in English, now reserved for Schedule d Caste (woman) as per the re-advertisement dated 15.12.2006, the 4 /--
backlog post of Reader in English is reserved for ST category identified earlier still remains and the same would be notified in future. Hence, the question of changing the reservation from Scheduled Tribe category to Scheduled Caste category does not arise. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner to the effect that only in order to help their own candidates the University has changed the reservation made in respect of Reader in Englis h from Schedule Tribe to Schedule Caste is absolutely baseless and liable to be rejected. The ground taken by petitioner is liable to be rejected at the threshold. Further it is specifically stated that, according to the reservation rules vide Government Order dated 22.11.2002, the post of Reader in English reserved for Scheduled Caste category is to be filled by a woman candidate. The questio n of filing up of posts of Professors and Readers who are in service does not arise. Therefore, the ground taken by petitioner is hereby strongly denied. It is also true that this respondent has issued the re-advertisement on 15.12.2006 in consonance with the earlier advertisement dated 24. 12.2005, reserving the post of Reader in English for Scheduled Caste (woman). However, as the case of the petitioner is still pending before this Hon'ble Court, 6 the University has stopped the selection process in respect of the post of Reader in English. Respondent No.1 has strictly followed the roster system. Among the posts identified by the Social Welfare Department, an unassigned Scheduled Caste post of Reader is assigned to the English Department by the Syndicate and the said post is reserved for Scheduled Caste (woman) category as per the roster point. According to the Reservation Rules vide Government Order dated 22.11.2002, the post of Reader in English in Scheduled caste category is to be filled by a woman candidate. Therefore, petitioner is not at all entitled to seek relief. The prayer sought is liable to be misconceived and is liable to be rejected.
5. So far as prayer (b) seeldng direction to the respondent No.1 to consider the application of petitioner which has been filed on 12.04.2003 pursuant to Advertisement Annexure-C and the Application Annexure-D and to take an appropriate decision, cannot be considered nor is entitled to seek such a direction when the said post was reserved for Scheduled Caste woman, the question of considering his application making appointment in Schedule Thbe category does not arise. The respondent 7 University has categorically stated that the post reserved for ST category is kept in tact, the same may be notified in future.
6. In the light of the statements made in para 4 of the statement of objections, the respondent Universit y is directed to notify and fill up the post of Schedule Tribe backlog post of Reader in English reserved for Schedule Tribe categ ory to be filled up after following due procedure envisaged under relevant provisions of University Act and Regulations and dispose of in accordance with law, In the event, petitioner files an application seeking appointment, his case also to be considere d on par with others and pass the appropriate orders on merits.
With these observations, the instant petition stand s disposed of.
Sd! JUDGE hn m/