Karnataka High Court
Smt.Rajshree vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 21 June, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4155
WP No. 203381 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
WRIT PETITION NO.203381 OF 2018 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT. RAJSHREE D/O CHANNAPPA NAGONI,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: PART TIME LECTURER,
NUTAN ARTS DEGREE COLLEGE, UKKALI,
TQ. & DIST. VIJAYAPUR.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI P. VILAS KUMAR SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI NITESH PADIYAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
Digitally signed TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION,
by KHAJAAMEEN M S BUILDING, BENGALURU-02.
L MALAGHAN
Location: HIGH 2. THE COMMISSIONER
COURT OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT,
KARNATAKA
SHESHADRI ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.
3. THE DIRECTOR
COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT,
SHESHADRI ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.
4. THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR
COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT,
MINI VIDHAN SOUDHA,
D.C. COMPOUND, DHARWAD-580025.
5. THE BLDE, ASSOCIATION
SOLAPUR ROAD, VIJAYAPUR-586101,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4155
WP No. 203381 of 2018
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
6. THE PRINCIPAL
NEW (NUTAN) ARTS DEGREE COLLEGE, UKKALI,
TQ & DIST. VIJAYAPUR-586101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI G.B. YADAV, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI D.P. AMBEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5;
R6 IS SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
I) ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR
DIRECTION, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED PAPER PUBLICATION /
RECRUITMENT NOTIFICATION DATED 26.06.2018 ISSUED BY
THE RESPONDENT NO.5 AND PUBLISHED IN THE VIJAYAVANI
KANNADA DAILY NEWS PAPER, VIJAYAPUR EDITION ON
27.06.2017 AS PER ANNEXURE-H, SL.NO.8 INSOFAR AS IT
RELATES TO THE APPOINTMENT TO THE POST OF ASSISTANT
PROFESSOR (DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION). II) ISSUE A WRIT
OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER OR DIRECTION DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 TO REGULARIZE THE SERVICES OF THE
PETITIONER IN THE POST OF ASSISTANT PROFESSOR /
LECTURER (DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION) IN THE
RESPONDENTS NO.5 TO 6 INSTITUTION (MANAGEMENT) AND
THE COLLEGE BY CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATION DATED
03.09.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AS PER
ANNEXURE-G AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
06.06.2024 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4155
WP No. 203381 of 2018
ORDER
This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-
I. Issue writ of certiorari or any other order or direction, quashing the impugned paper publication/recruitment notification dated 26.06.2018 issued by the respondent No.5 and published in the Vijayavani Kannada Daily News Paper, Vijayapur Edition on 27.06.2017 as per Annexure-H, Sl.No.8 in so far as it relates to the appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (Department of Education).
II. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other or direction directing the respondent No.2 to regularize the services of the petitioner in the post of Assistant Professor/Lecturer (Department of Education) in the respondents No.5 to 6 institution (management) and the college by considering the representation dated 03.09.2013 submitted by the petitioner as per Annexure-G. -4- NC: 2024:KHC-K:4155 WP No. 203381 of 2018
02. It is the case of the petitioner that she possess qualification of M.Ed and M.Phil in education. The respondent No.5 considering her education qualification, suitability appointed as part time lecture in the Department of Education with effect from 1993. Thereafter, she has been serving as a Lecturer at Arts and Commerce College, at Vijayapura and Nutan Arts College Tikota, which are governed by the management of respondent No.5.
03. The respondent No.5 sought for approval of appointment of the petitioner on temporary basis. The respondent No.4 by its order dated 29.06.1995 approved the said appointment from the year 1993. The petitioner has been serving as part time lecture continuously in the college coming under the management of respondent No.5, till this date.
04. The petitioner submitted her representation for her regularization in the college. Her representation was not considered by the Government. On the contrary called -5- NC: 2024:KHC-K:4155 WP No. 203381 of 2018 for notification for appointment to the post of Lecturer in the college run by the respondent No.5. As per the said notification post of the Assistant Professor (Department of Education) has been reserved to the category belonging to the Schedule Caste.
05. The notification issued by the respondent No.5 for the appointment for the post of Assistant Professor (Department of Education) is illegal. Instead of absorption to the petitioner to the said post and to deny her rights, the notification was issued for the recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor. Therefore, she has filed this writ petition praying for the above said reliefs.
06. The respondent No.4 has filed response to the writ petition. All the averments in the writ petition are denied. It has contended that the Government of Karnataka has issued notification regarding Karnataka Educational Institutions (Absorption of persons working as Part time Lecturers in the Aided Private Educational Institution) (Special) Rules, 2003 (for short 'Rules - -6-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4155 WP No. 203381 of 2018 2003'). The said enactment is passed with an intention to absorbing the part time lecturers serving in the aided colleges with few conditions.
07. The respondent No.4 has further contended that the petitioner if really served in the institution belonging to the respondent No.5, she ought to have applied under the said notification. As per the said notification, the candidate has to apply on or before 27.03.2004 and the application received after that date will not be considered for any purpose. It is further contended that the petitioner did not apply as per the said notification which is published in the News Paper and circulated in all the colleges. Therefore, she lost her rights to consider her name for regularization or re-appointment to the regular post. Hence, she cannot seek the relief in the present writ petition.
08. It is also contended by the respondent No4 that the Post of Assistant Professor (Department of Education) is reserved for the candidates belonging to the schedule -7- NC: 2024:KHC-K:4155 WP No. 203381 of 2018 caste. In the notification issued by the respondent No.5 in the Vijayavani Kannada Daily News Paper dated 27.06.2018, it is specifically stated that the said post is reserved for schedule caste. The petitioner does not belonging to the said post. Hence, her name cannot be considered for regularization for the post of Assistant Professor (Department of Education). It is also contended that as per the Rule-3 of the above said Rules-2003, appointment shall not be made against any post earmarked to be filled for among the candidates belonging to the SC/ST, in accordance with the reservation policy. Therefore, the petitioner is not eligible for regularization for the said post. Hence, she cannot seek relief as prayed in the writ petition for recruitment to the said post. The respondent No.4 had to issue notification. The petitioner has no right at present to claim the absorbing to Government service and cannot stall the recruitment process. With all these reasons prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4155 WP No. 203381 of 2018
09. I have heard the arguments of learned Sri. P. Vilas Kumar, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Sri.l G. B. Yadav, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents No.1 to 4 and Sri. D. P. Ambekar, the learned counsel for the respondents No.5 and 6.
10. The petitioner has not produced any reliable documents to show that she has been serving in the institution belonging to the respondent No.5 from the year 1993 - 1994. She had produced a letter given by the respondent No.5 stating that she had been serving in the said institution from 1993 - 1994 onwards till on issuance of said certificate. The respondents No.1 to 4 have seriously disputed the said certificate. It is repeatedly stated in the counter filed by the respondent No.4 that if really she had been working in the said institution, she should have produced the corroborative materials to show that she has been working in the said institution and received the salary. The contention of the respondents No.1 to 4 is acceptable, looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4155 WP No. 203381 of 2018
11. The Government of Karnataka had issued a notification in the Official Gazzette which is produced at Annexure-R4. A notification dated 12.02.2004 was issued about the Karnataka Educational Act. A notification was also issued by the College Education Department vide Annexure-R5 dated 10.03.2004. It shows that who so ever serving as part time lecture in aided college intends to absorb into the service, shall file an application on or before 27.03.2004 by 05.00 p.m. with prescribed format. The Rules - 2003 also clearly declares that any application received after 27.03.2004 will not be considered. It is not the case of the petitioner that she had applied under the said notification and her application was not considered. There is no explanation as to why she did not apply for the said post. Either she was not eligible to the said post or she was not interested to get recruitment. Under those circumstances, she cannot raise any objections to the Recruitment Notification.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4155 WP No. 203381 of 2018
12. The notification issued which is impugned in this writ petition dated 27.06.2018, the post of Assistant Professor (Department of Education) is reserved for candidate belonging to the schedule caste. Admittedly, the petitioner des not come under the said category. Rule - 3 of the above said Rules-2003 specifically states that the post reserved for a person belonging to the SC/ST cannot be filled up by any other candidates. Therefore, even it is not permissible to direct the Government / respondents No.1 to 4 to consider the name of the petitioner for the said post.
13. The learned counsel for the respondent No.4 has submitted that during the pendency of this writ petition recruitment process is completed and the candidate belonging to the schedule caste has been appointed for the post of Assistant Professor (Department of Education). Hence, there is no vacancy to consider the name of the petitioner.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4155 WP No. 203381 of 2018
14. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the Rattan Lal and others vs. State of Haryana and others1 and submitted that the temporary appointment of the Teachers on ad-hoc basis during academic year excluding summer vacation and non payment of the salary during the said vacation, is illegal. Accordingly, in this case also appointment of petitioner as part time lecturer during academic year excluding summer vacation and non payment of salary during vacation is totally illegal and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the relief.
15. The facts of the above said case is not applicable to the present case on two grounds i.e., (1) The Government of Karnataka passed Rule and issued a general notification absorbing the part time lecturer into regular service and also called upon the eligible candidates to apply in the prescribed format on or before 27.03.2004. 1 AIR 1987SC 478
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4155 WP No. 203381 of 2018 According to the case of the petitioner, she has been working in the institution since 1993 till filing of the writ petition. However, she did not apply and lost her right of absorption. It is case of petitioner that moreover, she made representation in the year 2013 as per Annexures - F and G. She had not get any response from the Department according to her case. She did not appear the Court within time. There is no explanation for the period of 05 years, she is approaching to the Court. The writ petition suffer from delay and latches. On this count also her contention is not acceptable. Therefore, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rattan Lal and others (supra) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of their case.
16. In view of these reasons, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief in the writ petition. Accordingly, this Court pass the following;
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4155 WP No. 203381 of 2018 ORDER The writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE KJJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 58 CT:PK