Karnataka High Court
Smt. Hemalatha. G vs State Of Karnataka on 22 July, 2025
Author: H.T. Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T. Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:27681
WP No. 7969 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 7969 OF 2022 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT. HEMALATHA. G
W/O DR VIJAYKUMAR
AGED 49 YEARS
R/AT NO 5, SOWJANYA
5TH CROSS, ASHOKNAGAR
TUMKURU 572105
PRESENTLY WORKING AT
SRI SIDDHARTHA COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
HMG ROAD, TUMKURU.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SRIKANTH M P., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Digitally signed by REP BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
HEMALATHA A HIGHER EDUCATION, M S BUILDING
Location: HIGH BENGALURU 560001.
COURTOF
KARNATAKA
2. THE COMMISSIONER
COLLEGIATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU 560001.
3. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER
COLLEGIATE EDUCATION DEPT
PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU 560001.
4. THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:27681
WP No. 7969 of 2022
HC-KAR
COLLEGIATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU 560001.
5. SRI SIDDARTHA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY
SSIT CAMPUS, KUNIGAL ROAD
MARALUR, TUMKURU 572105
REP BY SECRETARY.
6. SRI SIDDARTHA COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
DR H M GANGADARAIAH ROAD
SARASWATHIPURAM
TUMKURU 572104
REP BY ITS SECRETARY.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4:
R5 & R6 ARE SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER OF THE R-1 BEARING NO: ED310 UPC
2020 DATED 19.02.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-A H AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
ORAL ORDER
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 19.02.2022 issued by the first respondent vide Annexure- AH and also the communication dated 03.03.2022 issued by the third respondent vide Annexure-AJ, whereby the proposal sent by the sixth respondent - Management for -3- NC: 2025:KHC:27681 WP No. 7969 of 2022 HC-KAR approval of the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Professor has been rejected.
2. The sixth respondent - Management called applications for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor of Zoology, by notification dated 09.04.2018 vide Annexure-X. The said post was a backlog vacancy reserved for Scheduled Caste category. Pursuant to the notification, the petitioner filed an application. The sixth respondent - Management, after following all procedure of law, appointed the petitioner. Thereafter, the Management, on 28.05.2018 sent a proposal to the Government for approval of the appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Professor of Zoology. By the impugned communication dated 03.03.2022 vide Annexure-AJ, the proposal has been rejected. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised the following contentions:
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:27681 WP No. 7969 of 2022 HC-KAR
(i) Firstly, as on the last date of the notification issued by the Management dated 09.04.2018, vide Annexure-X, the petitioner was aged about 44 years 11 months. The Government issued an order vide Annexure-
Q dated 20.06.2018, giving age relaxation from 40 years to 45 years for the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Category I candidates. Thereafter, by an addendum dated 18.09.2018 vide Annexure-R, the said benefit has been extended to the backlog vacancies also. On 25.10.2019 vide Annexure-S, one more addendum was issued that the benefit was extended to the Private Aided B.Ed. Colleges. In view of the same, the petitioner's appointment requires to be approved. But, contrary to the Government Orders, the impugned communication has been issued.
(ii) Secondly, on earlier two occasions, the proposal sent by the management has been rejected by the second respondent and the same has been challenged before the Government in an appeal filed under Section 130 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983. The appellate authority -5- NC: 2025:KHC:27681 WP No. 7969 of 2022 HC-KAR has given a clear finding that the addendum issued by the Government for extending the benefit to the B.Ed. colleges has to be read from the date when the notification was issued, i.e., on 20.06.2018. Therefore, the petitioner is within the age limit and his case has to be considered for approval. Even the appellate authority directed the respondents to re-consider the issue of approval of the appointment of the petitioner in the light of the addendum dated 25.10.2019. The impugned communication was issued contrary to the directions issued by the appellate authority. Hence, he sought for allowing the writ petition.
4. Per contra, the learned AGA appearing for the respondent - State has contended that the sixth respondent - Management is running a Private Aided B.Ed., College. The application is called for selection of candidates to the post of Assistant Teacher, Zoology for the backlog vacancy. The benefit of the order dated 20.06.2018 has been made applicable to the Private Aided B.Ed., Colleges from 25.10.2019. The sixth respondent - -6-
NC: 2025:KHC:27681 WP No. 7969 of 2022 HC-KAR Management issued notification for filling up of backlog vacancy of Assistant Professor, Zoology on 09.04.2018. Therefore, the addendum dated 25.10.2019 is not applicable to the case of the petitioner. As on the date of the notification, the maximum age limit for the candidates to apply for the said post was 40 years. Since the petitioner crossed 40 years, her case was not approved by the Government. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the petition papers.
6. The sixth respondent - Management is running a B.Ed., College. It issued a notification dated 09.04.2018 to fill up one post of Assistant Professor, Zoology, which is a backlog vacancy. As on the date of the notification, the maximum age limit to file an application for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe candidates was 40 years. The Government issued an addendum on 20.06.2018, relaxing the age limit for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe -7- NC: 2025:KHC:27681 WP No. 7969 of 2022 HC-KAR candidates from 40 years to 45 years. Thereafter, another addendum dated 18.09.2018 has been issued extending the said benefit to the backlog vacancies also. One more addendum dated 25.10.2019 was issued extending the said benefit to the Private Aided B.Ed., Colleges. Without considering the addendum dated 18.09.2018 and 25.10.2019, the request of the Management for approval of the appointment of the petitioner was rejected by the second respondent on 14.03.2019 vide Annexure-AC. That has been challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal under Section 130 of the Karnataka Education Act in Appeal No.22/2019. The appellate authority, by order dated 07.03.2020 vide Annexure-AD, allowed the appeal and directed the respondents to re-consider the issue of approval of the second applicant's selection in the light of the addendum dated 25.10.2019. Inspite of that, the sixth respondent's proposal for approval of the appointment of the petitioner has been again rejected by the second respondent by endorsement dated 03.07.2020 -8- NC: 2025:KHC:27681 WP No. 7969 of 2022 HC-KAR vide Annexure-AE. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Government under Section 130 of the Education Act in Appeal No.18/2020. The appellate authority disposed of the appeal on 30.09.2021 vide Annexure-AF. The relevant paragraph is extracted below:
"The issue involved in the present appeal pertains to prescription of maximum age for post of Assistant Professor. The Government on 20.06.2- 018 issued order fixing maximum age limit for candidates belonging to various categories applying for the post of Assistant Professor. In the said order, the maximum age limit prescribed to candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe was 45 years, which was extended to back log posts by issuance of addendum dated 18.09.2018. The maximum age for Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe candidates as fixed in Government Order dated 20.06.2018 was extended to B.Ed. Colleges by issuance of addendum dated 25.10.2019. Hence, it is clear that maximum age limit prescribed in Government Order dated 20.06.2018 is extended to back log posts and even to B.Ed. Colleges, which is not in dispute.-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:27681 WP No. 7969 of 2022 HC-KAR The idea in issuing addendums is to extend a benefit conferred in an order to non-beneficiaries, the consequence of the same is to ensure parity among similarly placed persons, with an intention not to discriminate among equals. When that is done the same relates back to original date, when the benefit was conferred. In the instant case, maximum age limit was extended in Aided Colleges and same was made applicable to candidates applying for backlog posts in B.Ed. Colleges. By this measure, an effort was made to confer the benefit of Government Order dated 20.06.2018 to those candidates applying for backlog posts in B.Ed. Colleges. If the argument of the Department is accepted, then there would be discrimination meted out to candidates applyihg for backlog posts in B.Ed. Colleges as the benefit of Government Order dated 20.06.2018 cannot be applied till 25.10.2019. This is not the intention in issuing addendum as issuance of the same was to confer the benefit of Government Order dated 290.06.2018 to candidates applying for backlog posts in B.Ed., Colleges. Hence, the argument of the Department that the benefit of Government Order dated 20.06.2018 is applicable from 25.10.2019 cannot be accepted and it is conclusively held that by virtue of addendum the benefit of maximum age prescribed in Government
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27681 WP No. 7969 of 2022 HC-KAR Order dated 20.06.2018 accrues to the beneficiaries from 20.06.2018 itself.
Further, the backlog posts of Assistant Professor identified in 1st appellant Society to be filled from Schedule Tribe candidates has remained unfilled till date. The intention of identifying backlog posts is to provide representation to that community/category in a particular service. In instant case, the backlog post in 1st appellant - Society is identified for a candidate from Scheduled Tribe category. On perusal of the records, it is noticed that 2nd appellant is lone candidate for the post identified for Schedule Tribe category. The rejection of selection of 2nd appellant would result in the backlog post being unfilled and the intention to provide representation to that community or category being defeated. It is not the case, where the selection of the 2nd appellant is rejected on the ground that she does not belong to Schedule Tribe category. When such is the case, it would be improper not to approve the selection of 2nd appellant, especially when it is concluded that the benefit conferred under Government Order dated 20.06.2018 is applicable to backlog post in B.Ed. Colleges from 20.06.2018 itself. Hence, this order:
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27681 WP No. 7969 of 2022 HC-KAR ORDER In view of aforesaid reasons, the present appeal is allowed with a direction to respondent to approve of 2nd appellant's selection forthwith, thereby ensuring that unfilled backlog post is filled."
7. The order passed by the appellate authority has attained finality. Inspite of specific direction from the appellate authority, the second respondent, once again issued an endorsement rejecting the case of the petitioner on the ground that, as on the date of filing the application she had crossed 40 years. When there is a specific direction to approve the appointment of the petitioner, contrary to the directions issued by the appellate authority in Appeal No.18/2020 dated 30.09.2021, the impugned order has been passed. In view of the above, the impugned order is liable to be quashed.
8. Accordingly, the following order is passed:
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27681
WP No. 7969 of 2022
HC-KAR
(ii) The impugned communications dated
19.02.2022 and 03.03.2022 vide Annexures- AH and AJ are quashed.
(iii) The second respondent is directed to consider the case of the petitioner keeping in view of the order passed by the appellate authority, dated 30.09.2021 in Appeal No.18/2020, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(iv) In view of disposal of the petition, all pending applications stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE CM LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 42