Karnataka High Court
Malleshappa S/O Shanmukappa Huilgol, vs The State Of Karnataka, on 20 July, 2017
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K.N. Phaneendra
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JULY 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA
WRIT PETITION NO.103636 OF 2016(S-RES)
BETWEEN
MALLESHAPPA, S/O SHANMUKAPPA HUILGOL,
AGE 28 YERS, OCC: WORKING AS SDA
IN 3RD RESPONDENT COLLEGE
R/O SHIRAGUPPI VILLAGE, TQ. HUBBALLI
DIST. DHARWAD.
... PETITIONER
(By Sri CHETAN T. LIMBIKAI, ADV.)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF LAW
JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS,
VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001
M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU
2. THE COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION
PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU
3. THE HURAKADLI AJJA LAW COLLEGE,
REPTD. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
NEAR DURGADEVI TEMPLE, DHARWAD.
4. THE LINGAYAT EDUCATION ASSOCIATION(R)
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
TOWN HALL, DHARWAD 08
5. THE SECRETARY
:2:
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION
KALIDAS MARGA, GANDHINAGAR,
BENGALURU.
... RESPONDENTS
(By SMT. K. VIDYAVATI, AGA FOR R1, R2 AND R5
SRI. SANTHOSH B. MALAGOUDAR, ADV. FOR R3 AND R4.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED:26.08.2015 PASSED BY THE
FIRST RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-D TO THE EXTENT THE
SAME RELATES TO THE REJECTION OF THE CLAIM OF THE
PETITIONER FOR SANCTIONING OF GRANT-IN-AID TO THE
POST OF SDA AS THE SAME IS ARBITRARY ILLEGAL,
IRRATIONAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL BESIDES VIOLATIVE OF
ARTICLES 14, 16, 19 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
AND DIRECT THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO ACCORD GRANT-IN-
AID TO THE APPOINTMENT OF THE PETITIONER AS SDA IN
CONSIERATON OF HIS REPRESENTATION AT ANNEXURE-E
DATED 13.04.2016.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Santosh B. Malagoudar, learned counsel, for respondent Nos.3 and 4.
2. The undisputed facts involved in this case are that respondent No.4 has appointed the petitioner as Second Division Assistant in the year 2012. The 4th respondent has recommended by sending a proposal for approval of teaching :3: and non-teaching staff including the name of the petitioner. However, respondent No.1-Government has passed the impugned order dated 26.08.2015 excluding the petitioner's name for grant-in-aid. The Government has treated the post of the petitioner as backlog vacancy and directed respondent No.4 to fill up the said post by SC/ST candidates. The said order of the Government is as per Annexure-D. By virtue of the direction of the Government, respondent No.4 has issued a paper publication calling the applications to fill up the posts which are reserved for SC/ST as backlog vacancies. It is contended that if those posts are filled up, the petitioner would suffer great loss and injustice.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner 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 :4: 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 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 came to the conclusion that the Government ought to have provided an opportunity to the management to :5: reserve the posts for SC/ST as backlog vacancies in future, if the vacancies are accrued or created by the management. On giving such an opportunity to the management, the Government ought to have considered the name of the petitioner also in the same list to the post of Second Division Assistant.
5. The learned Additional Government Advocate, on the basis of the above said factual aspects and the ruling 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 that 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 representation of the petitioner as per :6: Annexure-E, if the said representation is once again sent by the management with the undertaking as noted above, and thereafter the Government has to approve the post of the petitioner 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 name of the petitioner in the approved list of non-teaching staff.
The Government has to consider and pass appropriate orders within three months from the date of receipt of undertaking by the management and representation of the petitioner.
Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE kmv