Karnataka High Court
Murugeshappa K Susangi, vs The State Of Karnataka, on 21 July, 2017
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K.N. Phaneendra
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA
WRIT PETITION NOS.102805-807/2016 (S-RES)
BETWEEN
1. MURUGESHAPA K SUSANGI,
S/O KOTRAPPA T SUSANGI,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
OCC: ATTENDER IN KLE'S G.K LAW COLLEGE,
HUBBALLI, R/O H.NO.65 OM NAGAR,
SAI NAGAR ROAD, UNKAL,
HUBBALLI.
2. SANJEEV D KABADAGE,
S/O DUNDAPPA KABADAGE,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
OCC: ATEENDER IN KLE'S G.K LAW COLLEGE,
HUBBALLI, R/O N. 26, PATEL NAGAR,
NEAR RAIL NAGAR,
VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI-31.
3. ANURADHA DUNGANAVAR,
W/O MRATUNJAY DUNGANAVAR,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
OCC: SDA IN KLE'S G.K LAW COLLEGE,
HUBBALLI, R/O N. 9, P.C.JABBIN STAFF QUARTERS,
VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI-31.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SMT.Y MALATI REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF LAW
:2:
JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS,
VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU.
2. THE COMMISSIONER
COLLEGIATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
TECHNICAL EDUCATION BHAVAN,
PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.
3. THE CHAIRMAN,
BOARD OF MANAGEMENT,
KARNATAKA LINGAYATH SOCIETY)
BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI
4. THE PRINCIPAL,
GURUSIDDAPPA KOTAMBARI
LAW COLLEGE, HUBBALLI,
DIST: DHARWAD.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. K. VIDYAVATI, AGA FOR R1 AND R2.)
(SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE. FOR R3
AND R4.)
THESE WRIT PETITION ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
GOVERNMENT ORDER BEARING NO. LAW NO.58 KLM 2013
DATED 26.08.2015 PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT VIDE
ANNEXURE-F AND FURTHER SOUGHT FOR DIRECTION
DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE
OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONERS DATED 19.09.2015,
10.09.2015 & 28.09.2015, PRODUCED AS PER ANNEXRUE-F, F1
& F2 RESPECTIVELY.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
:3:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Mallikarjunswamy B. Hiremath, learned counsel, for respondent Nos.3 and 4.
2. The undisputed facts involved in this case are that the respondent No.3 has appointed the petitioners No.1 & 2 as Attenders in the year 1993 and 1989 respectively and appointed the petitioner No.3 as Second Division Assistant in the year 2009, the petitioners have been working in the said institution. The 3rd respondent has recommended, by sending a proposal, for approval of teaching and non- teaching staff including the name of the petitioners. However, respondent No.1-Government has passed the impugned order dated 26.08.2015 without including the petitioners' names for grant-in-aid. The Government has treated the post of the petitioners as backlog vacancy and directed respondent No.3 to fill up the said posts by SC/ST candidates. The said order of the Government is as per Annexure-E. By virtue of the direction of the Government, :4: respondent No.3 has issued a paper publication calling the applications to fill up the posts which are reserved for SC/ST as back log vacancies. It is contended that if those posts are filled up, the petitioners would be suffer great loss and injustice.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon an order passed by this Court in W.P.No.10955 of 2012 dated 29.04.2015. The said case is on the similar footing. At paragraph Nos.13 and 14 the Court has observed thus:
"13. It is not disputed that the petitioner was appointed much prior to the institution having been brought under the grant-in-aid scheme of the Government and when by clause-9 of the said order dated 01.01.1996 itself it was provided that in case of non-compliance of the reservation policy, future vacancies of the institution would be treated as backlog vacancies meant to be filled up from amongst the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, I am of the opinion that the orders dated 12.01.2009 and 27.01.2012 passed by the respondents No.4 and 3 respectively deserve to be quashed and the petitioner would be entitled to be included amongst the teachers brought under the grand-in-aid list by order dated 01.01.1996.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of this Court dated 30.10.2001 :5: passed in W.P. Nos.20635-636/1999, wherein also similar question was involved and this Court, after considering the condition imposed with regard to the reservation policy for future vacancies (as is laid down in the present case by clause-9 of the order dated 01.01.1996) allowed the writ petitions and directed the name of the petitioners therein to be included under the grant-in-aid list. On a perusal of the said judgment, I am of the opinion that though the facts of the aforesaid case may be slightly different but the ratio of the said judgment would apply to the facts of this case."
4. In view of the above said paragraphs this Court has already come to the conclusion that the Government ought to have provided an opportunity to the management to reserve the posts for SC/ST as backlog vacancies in future, if the vacancies are accrued or created by the management. If such an opportunity is given to the management, the Government ought to have considered the names of the petitioners also in the same list to the post of Attenders and Second Division Assistant respectively.
5. The learned Additional Government Advocate, on the basis of the above said factual aspects and the ruling :6: noted above, has no objection to reconsider the notification issued by the Government subject to the management makes a representation by giving an undertaking that positively the management will adhere to the direction issued by the Government and the management would reserve the posts in future as against the backlog to the SC/ST or for backward classes according to law and the circulars of the Government and give opportunity to those classes in future, if any posts are created or if any posts become vacant in future.
6. In view of the above said submissions, there is no legal impediment for this Court to direct the Government to consider the representations of the petitioners as per Annexures-F, F1 & F2, if the said representations are once again sent by the management with the undertaking as noted above and the Government has to approve the posts of the petitioners and issue modified order on taking such undertaking by the management. Accordingly, the Government has to modify its order dated 26.08.2015 incorporating the names of the petitioners in the approved list of non-teaching staff.
:7:
The Government has to consider and pass appropriate orders within three months from the date of receipt of fresh representations through respondent No.3 along with the undertaking of the management respondent No.3, as noted above.
Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE EM/-