Karnataka High Court
Bibi Aaisha Tabassum A Bagban vs The State Of Karnataka on 30 August, 2023
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9781
WP No. 106043 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 106043 OF 2016 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
BIBI AAISHA TABASSUM A BAGBAN,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, ASSISTANT TEACHER,
CANTONMENT BOARD, URDU HIGH SCHOOL,
CAMP BELGAVI, R/O HOUSE NO.1295,
MOMIN GALLI, HIREBAGEWADI,
BELAGAVI.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SUNIL .S. DESAI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
R/BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-01.
Digitally 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF
signed by PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
VISHAL COLLEGE ROAD, DHARWAD.
VISHAL NINGAPPA
NINGAPPA PATTIHAL
PATTIHAL Date: 3. THE UNION OF INDIA,
2023.09.13 R/BY ITS SECRETARY,
12:38:11 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE,
+0530
104, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI.
4. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL DEFENCE,
DTE GENERAL DEFENCE ESTATE,
RAKSHA SAMPADA BHAWAN,
ULAABAATAR MARGA,
DELHI CANNT-110010.
5. THE HON'BLE PRINCIPAL DIRECTORATE,
DEFENCE ESTATE, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE,
SOUTHERN COMMAND, PUNE-411001.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9781
WP No. 106043 of 2016
6. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
CANTONMENT BOARD,
KHANAPUR ROAD, BELAGAVI.
7. THE HEAD MASTER,
CANTONMENT BOARD,
URDU HIGH SCHOOL,
KHANAPUR ROAD, BELAGAVI.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MADANMOHAN M. KHANNUR, AGA FOR R1-R2;
SRI. MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI, ADVOCATE FOR R3-R5;
SRI. K.S. PATIL AND MISS. APPORVA SOMANNAVAR, ADVS. FOR R6;
R7 SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICELS 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER
OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE
EMPLOYMENT NOTICE DATED: 30.06.2016 PUBLISHED BY THE 6th
RESPONDENT IN VIJAYVANI DAILY NEWS PAPER DATED:
01.07.2016, IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE POST OF ASSISTANT
TEACHER IN URDU MEDIUM HIGH SCHOOL AS PER ANENXURE-H AS
ILLEGAL AND ARBITRARY IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY
& ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the notification dated 30.06.2016 notified by the 6th respondent calling for the application from the eligible candidates for the post of Assistant Teachers, Urdu Medium High School.
2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Sunil S. Desai appearing for the petitioner, the leaned Madanmohan M. -3- NC: 2023:KHC-D:9781 WP No. 106043 of 2016 Khannur, AGA for respondent Nos.1 and 2, the learned counsel Sri. Mrutyunjay Tata Bangi appearing for respondent Nos.3 to 5 and the learned counsel Sri. K.S. Patil appearing for respondent No.6.
3. The facts adumbrated are as follows:
The petitioner, as a teacher possessed the qualification of B.Sc. and B.Ed.-PCM-CBZ The 6th respondent-Cantonment Board of the 5th respondent, issues an employment notification calling for application from eligible candidates for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher (Urdu medium). The petitioner finding herself eligible to be considered to the post of Assistant Teacher (Urdu medium), applies and is selected as Assistant Teacher. The petitioner is then directed by the 6th respondent to teach the High School students of the 7th respondent, Cantonment Board Urdu High School. The petitioner continues to teach the students of the High School from 2008 and even to this date.
On 01.07.2016, the post that the petitioner was appointed to, and teaching, was notified for fresh recruitment. It is then, the petitioner knocks at the doors of -4- NC: 2023:KHC-D:9781 WP No. 106043 of 2016 this Court. This Court in terms of its order dated 22.07.2016 grants an interim order staying the notification insofar as the petitioner is concerned.
4. The learned counsel Sri. Sunil S. Desai appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the petitioner was appointed in the year 2008 as Assistant Teacher (Urdu medium) and in terms of her qualification is posted to teach High School students. She has been teaching High School students from 2008, and is teaching even today. Therefore, for the last 15 years, the petitioner is teaching High School students. The notification issued according to the learned counsel is a high handed act on the part of the 6th respondent and therefore would seek quashment of the same and consequent continuance of the petitioner as a High School teacher.
5. On the other hand, the 6th respondent who has to answer the petition would vehemently refute the submissions seeking to contend that the petitioner was appointed as a High School teacher. She was only asked to teach the High School students, as there was no approval granted by the -5- NC: 2023:KHC-D:9781 WP No. 106043 of 2016 competent authority for recruiting High School teachers. The learned counsel would emphasize, on the fact that in the posts of the school, 50% would be by way of direct recruitment and other 50% by way of promotion. Since the petitioner fell short of seniority to be promoted to the post of Assistant Teacher for the High School, the petitioner was not considered and a notification is issued.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.
7. The facts afore narrated are not in dispute. The petitioner is an applicant pursuant to a notification issued by the 6th respondent. The Notification insofar as the petitioner is concerned reads as follows:
2. Assistant 05 General Essential: i) PUC, 6250-125-6500- 18 to 25 Teacher TCH/D Ed. 150-7100-175-
(Urdu Desirable: i)B.Sc/ 7800-200-8600-
Medium) B.Ed-PCM & CBZ 225-9500-300-
12000
8. The post notified was of a Assistant Teacher (Urdu Medium). The essential qualification was PUC, TCH/D.Ed. The desirable qualification was B.Sc., B.Ed. PCM- -6-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9781 WP No. 106043 of 2016 CBZ. The petitioner does possess the qualification of B.Sc./B.Ed in PCM-CBZ. In the light of the fact that she fulfilled all the necessary qualification and on scrutiny of the records, she was called for interview. The call letter reads as follows:
"Sub:- Written Test for recruitment of Assistant Teacher, Cantonment Board, Urdu High School, Belgaum Cantonment Board.
Ref:- Your application dt. 14/02/2008 for the post of Assistant Teacher.
With reference to the above application, please arrange to appear for the written test comprises of GK/IQ/English/Math. etc. at 1000 hrs. on 26th May 2008, in the premises of Cantonment Board Marathi High School, Belgaum.
Please note that no TA/DA is payable for attending the above said written test."
9. The call letter is indicative of the fact that the petitioner is called for interview to teach at the Urdu Medium High School. The appointment letter is issued to the petitioner on 21.07.2008. Here again she is posted as Assistant Teacher. Whether it is to teach primary school or for High School is not forthcoming. The petitioner since -7- NC: 2023:KHC-D:9781 WP No. 106043 of 2016 then is posted to work as Assistant Teacher at the High School (Urdu Medium) throughout i.e.from the date of appointment, through this date. This is ostensic on the score that the petitioner did possess the qualification that is required to teach the High School students, which is B.Sc., B.Ed.-PCM-CBZ.
10. When things stood thus, as a bolt from the blue, a notification comes about on 01.07.2016 notifying the post, in which the petitioner was working for the last 8 years to be filled up by direct recruitment. It is then the petitioner represents to the respondent on 06.07.2016 contending in detail that she has been teaching for the last 10 years in the Urdu Medium High School of the 6th respondent, and therefore, the said notification would result in her terminating. The representations went unheeded, therefore, the petitioner knocked at the doors of this Court in this subject petition. This Court protects the service of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher in High School. -8-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9781 WP No. 106043 of 2016
11. The issue now is whether the petitioner should be continued as a High School teacher or the notification should be permitted to be taken to its logical conclusion.
12. In the teeth of the aforesaid facts, what would unmistakably emerge is that the petitioner who has possesses the qualification to teach the High School students in Urdu Medium. Therefore she was appointed and asked to teach the students of the High School (Urdu Medium). The documents appended to the petition would be more than enough to conclude that the petitioner was in fact appointed as a Assistant Teacher in the High School and not in the Primary School. The petitioner has been working since 2008 and works through 2023, for the last 15 years, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not qualified to hold the post of a Assistant Teacher to teach the High School students. She has been teaching for the last 15 years, on the direction of the 6th respondent, rightly so, as she was qualified to teach. Therefore, issuing a Notification calling for application for filling up of the post in which the petitioner had already put in 10 years of service as a teacher, is unsustainable. The -9- NC: 2023:KHC-D:9781 WP No. 106043 of 2016 said unsustainability would lead to obliteration of the impugned action.
13. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that the post of Assistant Teacher in the High School was not sanctioned, is belied by the documents appended to the petition. Sanction is accorded on 10.06.2005 by the 5th respondent. The grant of sanction is as follows:
"It is further stated that only Graduates with B.Ed. are eligible to teach the higher Stds viz., VIII to X as per the existing Orders of Karnataka State Government."
14. The submission of the learned counsel is that the sanction as was accorded by the 5th respondent is approved by the competent authority only in the year 2016 and therefore, the petitioner would not derive any right, is noted only to be rejected, as it is fundamentally flawed. The sanction is accorded. What is granted is an approval for such sanction. It would undoubtedly date back to the date of according of sanction, as the rights accrued in the interregnum, cannot be seen to vanish in thin air.
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9781 WP No. 106043 of 2016 Therefore, none of the submissions of the respondent No.6 would merit any acceptance.
15. For the aforesaid reasons, the following ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed.
ii. The Employment Notice dated 30.06.2016 published by the 6th respondent in Vijayvani daily NEWS paper dated 01.07.2016 insofar as it relates to the post of Assistant Teacher in Urdu Medium High School is quashed.
iii. The petitioner is declared entitled to all consequential benefits that would flow from the quashment of the impugned action.
iv. All such benefits that have been withheld on account of the aforesaid impugned action, which is now nullified, shall be made over to the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE kmv ct:bck