Karnataka High Court
Sri. Dyavappa vs Sri Mahesh Babu on 20 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:47229-DB
WA No. 1028 of 2022
C/W CCC No. 996 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1028 OF 2022 (S-RES)
C/W
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 996 OF 2022
IN W.A.No.1028 OF 2022 :
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE UNIVERSITY,
JNANABHARATHI CAMPUS,
BANGALORE-560 056.
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.
2. BANGALORE UNIVERSITY,
REP. BY ITS VICE-CHANCELLOR,
JNANABHARATHI CAMPUS,
BANGALORE-560 056.
...APPELLANTS
Digitally signed by KORLAHALLI
BHARATHIDEVIKRISHNACHARYA
Location: HIGH COURT OF
(BY SRI. B. PRAMOD, ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. SRI. DYAVAPPA,
S/O. MARIVENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/AT FLAT NO.4A, SITE NO.8,
DAEWOO PALACE, 3RD CROSS,
AMARJYOTHI LAYOUT,
SANJAY NAGAR,
BEHIND VAIBHA THEATRE,
BANGALORE-560 094.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:47229-DB
WA No. 1028 of 2022
C/W CCC No. 996 of 2022
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONAL &
ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS (DPAR),
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
5. THE UNIVERSITY VISVESVARAYA
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
(AN AUTONOMUS UNIVERSITY)
K.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 001.
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR /DIRECTOR
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R.S. RAVI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI.VENKATESH C.,ADVOCATE FOR R1,
SRI. VIKAS RAJIPURA, AGA FOR R2 TO R4,
SRI. RAGHAVENDRA G GAYATRI, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20/07/2022 PASSED IN WP NO.6426/2021
BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT AND
DISMISS THE SAID WRIT PETITION BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL.
IN CCC NO.996 OF 2022 :
BETWEEN:
SRI. DYAVAPPA,
S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/AT FLAT NO.4A, SITE NO.8,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:47229-DB
WA No. 1028 of 2022
C/W CCC No. 996 of 2022
DAEVOO PALACE,
3RD CROSS,
AMARAJYOTHI LAYOUT,
SANJAY NAGAR,
BEHIND VAIBHAV THEATRE,
BENGALURU - 560 094.
...COMPLAINANT
(BY SRI. R.S.RAVI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. VENKATESH C.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. MAHESH BABU,
REGISTRAR,
BANGALORE UNIVERSITY,
JNANA BHARATHI CAMPUS,
BENGALURU - 560 056.
...ACCUSED
(BY SRI. B PRAMOD.,ADVOCATE)
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND R/W SECTION 11 AND 12 OF
THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, BY THE COMPLAINANT,
WHEREIN HE PRAYS THAT THE HON'BLE COURT BE PLEASED TO
ISSUE NOTICE TO INITIATE THE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS
AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR WILLFUL AND DELIBERATE
DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE
COURT IN WP NO.6426/2021 DATED 20.7.2022 (ANNEXURE-A)
AND PUNISH HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
THE APPEAL AND CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION ARE COMING ON
FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:47229-DB
WA No. 1028 of 2022
C/W CCC No. 996 of 2022
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) Heard Sri B.Pramod, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri R.S.Ravi, learned Senior Counsel as instructed by Advocate Sri. Venkatesh C, appearing for respondent No.1, learned Addl.Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4, as well as learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5-University, which is said to be the successor of the appellant so far as the post in question is concerned.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants-University that University had issued Notification dated 21.03.2018 vide Annexure-`C', for filling up the post of Assistant Professor, Department of Architecture. Two posts were notified, one was reserved for Scheduled Tribe (Open) and the other for Scheduled Tribe (Women). The 1st respondent applied for the post of -5- NC: 2024:KHC:47229-DB WA No. 1028 of 2022 C/W CCC No. 996 of 2022 Assistant Professor in the Department of Architecture under Scheduled Tribe (open) category. The selection was conducted and on 27.12.2019, one Mr.Ranganath M.N., was appointed under Scheduled Tribe (open) backlog reservation vacancy. It is submitted that no selection was made to the post of Assistant Professor under Scheduled Tribe (Women) category as no eligible candidates had applied for the post. It is submitted that selection came to an end in December 2019 itself. Long thereafter, on 09.01.2021, a representation was submitted by the 1st respondent seeking to issue appointment order to him relying on the Government Order dated 22.11.2002 since there was no candidate available under the Scheduled Tribe (Women) category, which was not considered by the appellant.
3. The 1st respondent approached this Court filing Writ Petition No.6426/2021 (S-RES). The learned Single Judge by the order dated 20.07.2022, confirmed that the claim raised by the writ petitioner is liable to be allowed -6- NC: 2024:KHC:47229-DB WA No. 1028 of 2022 C/W CCC No. 996 of 2022 and the University was directed to take note of the Government Order dated 22.11.2002 vide Annexure-`H' and to offer appointment to the 1st respondent within three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the learned Single Judge omitted to take note of the provisions of Karnataka State Civil Services (Unfilled Vacancies Reserved for the Persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes) (Special Recruitment) Rules, 2001, (for short, `2001 Rules') as well as the provisions of the Government Order bearing No.DPAR 19 SBC 89, dated 12th July 1989. It is submitted that the reliance placed by the learned Single Judge on the provisions of Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 and specifically, Rule 9 (1B) thereof, was totally misplaced since the recruitment in question was admittedly a special recruitment made in respect of backlog vacancies.
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:47229-DB WA No. 1028 of 2022 C/W CCC No. 996 of 2022
5. It is further submitted that the recruitment notice itself specifically refers to 2001 Rules referred to above, which were notified on 21.11.2001 and 01.06.2002. It is submitted that the Government Order No.DPAR 19 SBC 89, is also specifically noted in the notification and would be applicable to the selection in question.
6. It is further contended that Rule 8 of 2001 Rules specifically provides that the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, the Karnataka Civil Services (Probation) Rules, 1977, and such other rules for the time being in force regulating the conditions of service made or deemed to have been made under the Karnataka State Civil Services Act, 1978 (Karnataka Act 14 of 1990), in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of these Rules, shall be applicable to the persons appointed under these Rules.
7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the said provision would make it clear that, -8- NC: 2024:KHC:47229-DB WA No. 1028 of 2022 C/W CCC No. 996 of 2022 in case there is a provision in the 2001 Rules or in the Government Orders applicable to backlog vacancies, the provisions of General Rules would have no application to such matters.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, on the other hand, contends that the reservation of 33% of the post for women is on the basis of Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules 1977 and specifically in terms of Rule 9 (1B) thereof. It is submitted that the horizontal reservation as regards women candidate is not a part of the common reservation or the provisions contained in 2001 Rules with regard to carrying forward of the backlog vacancies. It is submitted that since the horizontal reservation for women candidates is a creature of 1977 General Recruitment Rules, the further provision as contained in the proviso to said Rule provides that if adequate number of eligible women candidates are not available, the unfilled vacancies shall be filled up by men candidates belonging to the same -9- NC: 2024:KHC:47229-DB WA No. 1028 of 2022 C/W CCC No. 996 of 2022 category would apply in respect of the recruitment in question. It is therefore contended that the provisions in the Government Order dated 12.07.1989 states that backlog vacancies which remained unutilised during any recruitment shall be carried forward for the next recruitment also and should be renotified for three years or for three direct recruitments would not apply in the instant case since there is no de-notification of the vacancies as such and all that has been done by the learned Single Judge is to direct the filling up of the vacancy by a male candidate who was available in terms of the proviso to Rule 9 (1B) of Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules,1977.
9. The learned Addl.Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4 also supports the contentions raised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for 1st respondent.
10. Having considered the contentions advanced, we notice that the vacancy of Assistant Professor
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:47229-DB WA No. 1028 of 2022 C/W CCC No. 996 of 2022 (Architecture) to the Scheduled Tribe (open) category was filled up on 27.12.2019. The learned Single Judge has accepted the contentions raised by the writ petitioner/ 1st respondent that the 1st respondent became aware of the fact that there were no women candidates who had applied for the post of Assistant Professor (Architecture) under the category of Schedule Tribe (Women) only on receipt of Annexure-`G' communication on 08.01.2021. The representation was immediately submitted on 09.01.2021. The W.P was filed on 06.01.2021.
11. In the above factual situation, we are unable to accept the contentions raised by the appellants that filing of the writ petition was unduly belated. Further the learned Single Judge has specifically considered the contention that horizontal reservation made for women is made in terms of sub-rule (1B) of Rule 9 of Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977. That being the position, we are in agreement with the learned Single Judge that the proviso to the said Rule would also be
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:47229-DB WA No. 1028 of 2022 C/W CCC No. 996 of 2022 applicable to the said recruitment. The fact that the recruitment in question was a backlog vacancy would make no difference to the situation since there is no de-reservation involved in the instant case.
12. In the above view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that the directions issued by the learned Single Judge is completely unwarranted, cannot be accepted. We find no grounds to interfere in this intra Court appeal filed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
Therefore, the appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.
The 5th respondent, who is the successor in interest of the appellant-University shall take appropriate steps to give effect to the directions of the learned Single Judge within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:47229-DB WA No. 1028 of 2022 C/W CCC No. 996 of 2022 In the light of the orders passed in this writ appeal, the Civil Contempt Petition is closed.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/-
(UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE BK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17