Karnataka High Court
Mrs Poornima Bocheer K C vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 January, 2021
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.23300/2013 (S- RES)
BETWEEN
MRS. POORNIMA BOCHEER K.C.
D/O. SRI. K.S. CHANDRASHEKAR
32 YEARS
RESIDING AT MARIGOWDA LAYOUT
2ND CROSS, SHIVAKRUPA NILAYA
MANDYA - 571 401
... PETITIONER
[BY SRI. ASHOK. HARANAHALLI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. VINAYAK B., ADVOCATE
(VIDEO CONFERENCING)]
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT
(PRIMARY AND SECONDARY)
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
BANGALORE - 560 001
2. THE DIRECTOR
PRE-UNIVERSITY EDUCATION BOARD
18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM
BENGALURU - 560 003
2
3. THE PRESIDENT
JANATHA SHIKSHANA TRUST
(REGD)
MANDYA - 571 401
4. THE PRINCIPAL
P.E.S. P.U. COLLEGE
ENGINEERING COLLEGE ROAD
MANDYA - 571 401
5. RASHMI B.G.
D/O. GADDAIAH
AGED ABOUT MAJOR
R/AT BEVINAHALLI VILLAGE
KOTHATHI HOBLI
MANDYA TALUK & DISTRICT
... RESPONDENTS
[BY SMT. A.R. SHARADAMBA, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
(PHYSICAL HEARING)
SRI. H.B. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
(PHYSICAL HEARING)]
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO QUASH ANNEXURE-A DATED 30.05.2013 ISSUED BY R-
4 AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner in this writ petition had initially
called in question the action of the respondents in not
permitting the petitioner to attend the interview called
by respondent No.4 - the Principal, P.E.S. P.U. college
for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Biology at
the college.
2. Later, when respondent No.5 came to be
appointed pursuant to the said selection process,
respondent No.5. has been impleaded into these
proceedings and the writ petition is amended raising a
challenge to the appointment of respondent No.5.
3. Heard the learned Senior counsel,
Sri. Ashok Haranahalli, appearing for the petitioner
and the learned AGA, Smt. A.R. Sharadamba,
appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the learned
counsel, Sri. Chandrashekar H.B., appearing for
respondent No.4.
4. The learned Senior counsel would submit
that the petitioner was not called for interview when
the selection process was initiated, in which
respondent No.5 was appointed and it is in that light,
the challenge to the appointment of respondent No.5
is made.
5. He would further submit that there are two
posts of Biology Lecturers in respondent No.4 -
Institution in terms of the communication from the
college to the Government dated 23.08.2019 and
insofar as the discipline of Biology, the relevant
portion of the communication insofar as it pertains to
Biology, reads as follows:
1. Name of the department: Biology 2. Details of
work-load: Grant-in-Aid 2019-20
PES PU COLLEGE, 8 - Theory
I PUC PCMB 2 159
MANDYA 16 - Practical
08 - Theory
PES PU COLLEGE,
II PUC PCMB 2 140 16 - Practical
MANDYA
Total-48 hrs.
No. of Staff employed and the assignment of work.
Name of the Work-load assigned
Designation as Date of Grand
S.N teacher Total
Approved Appointment
Sri/Smt Theory Practical
PUC PUC
1 Rashmi B.G. Lect in Biology 06 14 20
2 06 14 20
3 04 04 08
16 32 48
The afore-extracted portions of the
communication makes two facts clear; one there are
two posts against which, only the fifth respondent is
working and there is adequate workload for which
appointment of a Teacher is a necessity. The
communication further makes it clear that the vacant
post of lecturer in Biology is reserved for women -
GM.
6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.4, Sri. Chandrashekar H.B., would submit that
consideration has to be only in terms of Karnataka
Pre-University Education (Academic, Registration,
Administration and Grant-in-aid etc.) Rules, 2006
(hereinafter referred to as 'the said Rules' for short)
with particular reference to Rule 15 of the said Rules.
7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was
appointed in respondent No.4 - Institution with effect
from 13.05.2005 as a Lecturer in Biology on
temporary basis and has continued to teach Biology in
the Institution for the last 16 years and the petitioner
has now crossed the age of any other recruitment as
she is 38 years old.
8. It is apposite to refer to the order of this
Court in W.P.No.37024/2010 dated 26.09.2012,
wherein this Court, has held as follows:
"5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
relied on a decision in a batch of Writ Petitions
in W.P.No.21165/1992 and connected matters
dated 28th September 1994 and submitted
that, in case of part-time Lecturers, this Court
has directed for consideration of relaxation of
age as well as for giving weightage for the
serve rendered by the part-time Lecturers.
6. Petitioner claims that, she has
worked for nearly five years in the fourth
respondent - Institution as a Lecturer. In view
of the same, her case should have also been
considered.
7. Since regular recruitment process
as per Annexure-F may not be existing,
however, in case there is any further
recruitment or advertisement for recruitment,
the representation of the petitioner may be
considered in accordance with law and if the
judgment referred to above is applicable to the
case of the petitioner, same also be
considered."
In view of the aforesaid order, wherein this
Court has held that in a fact situation where an
employee/Teacher would not be entitled to participate
in any recruitment process being barred on age, will
have to be considered in the post that she is working
for several years. In the case at hand, it is not in
dispute that the petitioner is working as a lecturer in
Biology from 13.05.2005, which is closed to 16 years
now.
9. In view of the one post in the cadre of
Lecturer in the discipline of Biology being vacant even
as on date, the respondent - Government and
respondent No.4 are to considered the case of the
petitioner for appointment of the said post against the
vacancy that is existing in accordance with law.
10. While considering the case of the petitioner
the order rendered in the aforesaid case with regard
to grant of service weightage for the service that the
petitioner had rendered in the Institution for last 16
years is to be taken into consideration.
11. Therefore the following:
ORDER
i. The writ petition is allowed in part.
ii. The State Government and respondent
No.4 is directed to consider the case of the
petitioner in the vacant post of lecturer in
biology accordance with law within six
months from the date of receipt of copy of
this order.
12. This Court, by an order dated 03.07.2018
had directed that the petitioner shall not to be
disturbed without the leave of the Court and the said
order is in operation even as on date. In the light of
the fact that the interim order is in operation, the
petitioner shall not be disturbed, till a consideration in
terms of the direction issued hereinabove is made by
the respondents herein.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SJK
