Karnataka High Court
Supriya Swamy, 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 21TH DAY OF JULY 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA
WRIT PETITION NOS.102803-102804/2016 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SUPRIYA M. SWAMY
D/O MALLAYYA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
OCC: LECTURER AT KLE'S G.K. LAW COLLEGE,
HUBBALLI, R/O LECTURE,
C/O G.K. LAW COLLEGE,
VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI-58.
2. ASHWINI B.HIREMATH,
D/O BASAVARAJ HIREMATH,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
OCC: LECTURER AT KLE'S G.K. LAW COLLEGE,
HUBBALLI, R/O B.S.HIREMATH,
HIREMATH CHOWL,
DESHPANDE NAGAR, HUBBALLI.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SMT.Y.MALATHI REDDY, ADVOCATE.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF LAW, JUSTICE &
HUMAN RIGHTS, VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU.
2. THE COMMISSIONER,
COLLEGE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
TECHNICAL EDUCATION BHAVAN,
PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.
2
3. THE CHAIRMAN,
BOARD OF MANAGEMENT,
KARNATAKA LINGAYAT EDUCATION SOCIETY,
BELAGAVI.
4. THE PRINCIPAL,
GURUSIDDAPPA KOTAMBARI
LAW COLLEGE, HUBBALLI,
DIST: DHARWAD.
RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.KUMAR, AGA FOR R1 & 2)
(BY SRI MALLIKARJUN B.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO WRIT
OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE GOVERNMENT ORDER LAW
NO.58 KLM 2013 DATED 26.08.2015 PASSED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS ARE
CONCERNED, PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-G.
THESE WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING B GROUP 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 Mallikarjunswamy B. Hiremath, learned counsel, for respondent Nos.3 and 4.
2. The petitioner No.1 was appointed as a Lecturer at KLE College, Chikkodi on 05.10.2009 and 3 subsequently he was transferred to KLE's G.K College, Hubballi on 19.11.2012. The 2nd petitioner also appointed as a Lecturer in KLE's G.K College, Hubballi, on 16.08.2011. Both the petitioners are presently working in the said college at Hubballi.
3. The 1st respondent has decided to implement the report of Malimuddanna Committee to admit the 19 Law Colleges to the grant-in-aid. In this context, the 4th respondent has recommended and sent a proposal to the Government for approval and for admitting the names of the petitioners to the grant-in-aid. In fact, the Government has passed an order on 26.08.2015 as per Annexure-G without including the names of the petitioners admitting their posts to the grant in aid. In fact the Government has on two grounds rejected the said proposal in so far as petitioners are concerned.
4. The Government has treated the posts of the petitioners as backlog vacancies and directed the respondent No.4 to fill up the said posts by SC/ST candidates. Secondly it is observed by the Government 4 that the petitioners have not completed the required educational qualification within two years from the date of their appointment. In so far as the first aspect is concerned, the respondent No.4 by virtue of the Government order as per Annexure-F has notified for filling up the said vacancies by means of SC/ST candidates treating those posts as backlog vacancies.
5. Of course if those posts are filled up, the petitioners would suffer great loss and injustice. Second point is concerned it is the contentions of the petitioners that actually they have completed the required educational qualification within the time prescribed and they were qualified as on the date of considering the posts for grant-in-aid by the Government. Accordingly, both the petitioners have made representations to the 4th respondent as per Annexures-H & J and intern, the 4th respondent has forwarded the said representations to the Government i.e., 1st respondent as per Annexures-H & J.
6. The counsel appearing for the 3rd and 4th respondents submits that, the representations made by 5 the petitioners are already before the Government for consideration. In view of the above, the Government is required to consider the proposal of the Management along with the representations made by the petitioners as per Annexures-H & J.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners in the context of the point No.1 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 6 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."
8. In view of the above said paragraphs this Court has already arrived at a 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 7 created by the Management. If such an opportunity is given 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.
9. 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 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.
10. In view of the above said facts and circumstances and the submissions made by the respective counsel, there is no legal impediment to this court to direct the Government to consider the 8 representations of the petitioners as per Annexures-H and J and also the proposal made by the respondent No.4 for approval of the posts of the petitioners if their representation is once again sent by the Management, with the above said factual aspects with an undertaking as noted above. In that eventuality the Government has to approve the post of the petitioners and issue modified order on taking such undertaking by the Management. The government has to consider and pass appropriate orders in this regard within three months from the date of receipt of undertaking by the respondent No.3- Management. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE EM/-