Giriraju G K vs The State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 894 Kant

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

                       PRESENT

          THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

                          AND

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

               W.P.No.4662/2017 (S - KAT)

BETWEEN :

1.     GIRIRAJU G.K.,
       S/O KRISHNAPPA GOWDA,
       AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
       VICE PRINCIPAL,
       GGJC SOPPUGADDE,
       TIRTHAHALLI TALUK,
       SHIMOGA DISTRICT

2.     SADANANDAMURTHY
       S/O LATE C.V.RAMAKRISHNAPPA,
       AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
       LECTURER, DIET,
       KOLAR DISTRICT

3.     JAYASIMHA N.,
       S/O NARASEGOWDA,
       AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
       ASSISTANT PROJECT CO-ORDINATOR,
       SARVASHIKSHANA ABHIYAN,
       BANGALORE NORTH TALUK

4.     RAVEENDRA VEERAPPA SHETTAPPANAVAR
       S/O VEERAPPA SHETTAPPANAVAR,
       AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
       ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF MIDDAY MEALS,
       SHIGGAON TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT
                        -2-

5.     K.M.SHAIK KHAIRUDDIN
       S/O MEHABOOB SHAIB,
       AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
       ASSISTANT PROJECT CO-ORDINATOR,
       SSA, DHARWAD, DDPI OFFICE,
       NEAR D.C. COMPOUND, DHARWAD

6.     DESHMUKH H.S.,
       S/O SHANKARAPPA,
       AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
       ASSISTANT PROJECT CO-ORDINATOR,
       RMSA, KALABURGI

7.     RANGASWAMY R.,
       S/O RAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
       HEAD MASTER, DDPI, MMS,
       TALUK PANCHAYATH,
       MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT

8.     SHANKARE GOUDA L.,
       S/O LINGAYYA,
       AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
       LECTURER, DIET,
       BENGALURU RURAL, RAJAJI NAGAR,
       BENGALURU-560010

9.     GANGAPPA S.C.,
       S/O CHOWDAPPA,
       AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
       LECTURER, DIET,
       BENGALURU RURAL, RAJAJI NAGAR,
       BENGALURU-56010

10 .   RAMESH M.V.,
       S/O VENKATARAMANAYYA,
       AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
       LECTURER, DIET,
       BENGALURU RURAL, RAJAJINAGAR,
       BENGALURU-560010

11 .   S.N.RAVIPRAKASH
       S/O S.NARASIMHAMURTHY,
       AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
       HEAD MASTER,
                          -3-

        GOVT. HIGH SCHOOL, HANGARAHALLI,
        HOLENARASIPURA TALUK,
        HASSAN DISTRICT

12 .    PRADEEP KUMAR C.N.,
        S/O C.T.NARAYANA RAO,
        AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
        LECUTRER, DIET,
        KOLAR DISTRICT                        ...PETITIONERS

                   (BY SRI B.M.ARUN, ADV.)

AND :

1.      THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
        REP BY ITS SECRETARY,
        DEPT. OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATION,
        REFORMS (SERVICE RULES),
        VIDHANA SOUDHA,
        BANGALORE-560001

2.      THE SECRETARY
        KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
        UDYOGA SOUDHA, BANGALORE

3.      THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY
        KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
        UDYOGA SOUDHA, BANGALORE

4.      THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
        REP BY ITS SECRETARY II,
        PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION,
        M.S.BUILDINGS, BANGALORE-560001

5.      THE COMMISSIONER FOR PUBLIC
        INSTRUCTIONS IN KARNATAKA,
        NEW PUBLIC OFFICES,
        NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
        BANGALORE-560001                     ...RESPONDENTS

         (BY SRI A.C.BALARAJ, AGA FOR R-1, R-4 & R-5;
        SRI REUBEN JACOB, ADV. FOR R-2; R-3 SERVED.)
                             -4-

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 31.08.2016 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN APPLICATION
Nos.2316-2347/2010 VIDE ANNEXURE-D IN RESPECT OF
PETITIONER CONCERN AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION
Nos.2316-2347/2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE
KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.

      THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
S. SUJATHA, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                            ORDER

      These          petitions        are      filed      by       the

petitioners/applicants       challenging       the     order    dated

31.08.2016        passed         by    the     Karnataka         State

Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore ['Tribunal' for short]

in Application Nos.2316-2347/2010 as far as the

petitioners are concerned.

2. The petitioners contend that the Karnataka

Public Service Commission [KPSC] had issued

notification dated 16.10.1996 inviting the

applications for the selection of Head Masters/Head

Mistress in the High Schools of the Department of

Public Education. The petitioners had applied for the

said post. They were selected as per the Additional List

dated 25.2.1999. The State Government under

Notification dated 6.3.1996 has brought about an

amendment to Rule 9 of the Karnataka Civil Services

(General Recruitment) Rules, 1997 by inserting Sub-

Rule 1-B which provided reservation/quota to women

candidates to an extent of 30% in the matter of selection

and appointment. Due to the said reservation, the

petitioners though had secured more marks than the

women candidates selected in the Main Selection List,

had been delegated to the Additional List.

Sri.B.L.Narayan, one of the applicant for the post of

Head Masters, in pursuance of the Notification issued

by the KPSC, though applied, had not been selected

either in the Main or in the Additional List. The said

B.L.Narayan filed writ petition in W.P.(C)No.232/1999

before the Hon'ble Supreme Court challenging 30% of

reservation for women candidates which came to be

disposed of, with a direction to consider his claim

having regard to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.3132/2007 reported in

(2007) 8 SCC 785 in the case of Rajesh Kumar

Daria Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and

others.

3. Petitioners contend that in W.P.(C)

No.232/1999 filed by Sri.B.L.Narayan, it was

categorically admitted by the State that though the

posts reserved for women were 351 in numbers, 451

women candidates were selected as Head Mistresses

and the excess number was 67. It was categorically

admitted that B.L.Narayan had more marks than the

candidates selected under 30% reservation and hence

he ought to have been selected. The State not being in

a position to contradict these statements and agreed to

verify the same and if B.L.Narayan is found to have

secured higher marks than the last of the candidates

selected under the women quota, his case would be

considered and appointment would be given.

Accordingly, pursuant to the judgment of the Hon'ble

Apex Court dated 27.9.2009 in W.P.(C) No.232/1999,

the said B.L.Narayan has been given appointment and

was placed at Sl.No.94-A of the additional list.

4. It is the grievance of the petitioners that

having regard to the revision of the selection list in the

case of B.L.Narayan, the said revision should have

equally been made in respect of the petitioners also.

The same having not been done, the petitioners had

made representation to the respondents seeking to

include them in the main list and also extend all service

benefits in view of the fact that the State conceded that

there is excess appointment of women candidates. In

response to the representation submitted by the

petitioner No.4, an endorsement dated 12.1.2010 was

issued by the 3rd respondent, to the effect that the

decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court is only applicable to

Sri.B.L.Narayan and cannot be extended to the

petitioners. Aggrieved, the petitioners have challenged

the endorsement dated 12.1.2010 issued to the 4th

petitioner by the respondent No.3 before the Tribunal in

Application Nos.2136-2147/2010 under Section 19 of

the Karnataka Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 inter

alia seeking a direction to the respondents to re-do the

selection list for the posts of Head Masters/Head

mistress so far as it relates to the women candidates

selected in excess of the 30% quota reserved for women

and further to consider the case of the applicants in

place of those women candidates and place the

applicants in the main selection list published on

25.2.1999.

5. The respondents resisted the same by filing

the reply statements.

6. The Tribunal has dismissed the applications

of the petitioners vide order dated 31.8.2016. Being

aggrieved, the petitioners have preferred the present

petitions.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners

vehemently argued that the Tribunal has grossly erred

in rejecting the application on the ground of delay and

laches. The Hon'ble Apex Court has delivered the

judgment on 29.7.2009 in W.P(C)232/1999 pursuant to

which B.L.Narayan was appointed on 29.9.2009, the

impugned endorsement was issued on 12.01.2010.

Immediately the applications were filed on 26.3.2010

before the Tribunal. Considering these aspects, the

Tribunal ought not to have rejected the applications on

the ground of delay or laches on the part of the

petitioners in challenging the endorsement dated

12.1.2010. It was argued that the Tribunal has erred in

proceeding on the basis that the petitioners were

challenging the appointments. Indeed what was

challenged was the non extension of the benefit of the

- 10 -

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

B.L.Narayan and consequent revision of the list to the

petitioners as well. The relief claimed by the petitioners

would not result in setting aside of any appointments

but only result in the re-alignment of the seniority of the

candidates.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the

respondent Nos.2 and 3-KPSC submitted that the

judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the

case of B.L.Narayan was a judgment in personam and

not in rem, as such the petitioners are not entitled to

the reliefs claimed. The petitioners though were

appointed in the year 1999, they had approached the

authorities to extend the benefit to them pursuant to

the Notification dated 29.9.2009 issued by the KPSC

selecting B.L.Narayan and placing him in Sl.No.94-A of

the additional list. As such, the Tribunal has rightly

rejected the applications on the ground of delay and

- 11 -

laches which would certainly cause inconvenience and

injury to others who were not arrayed as parties to the

proceedings and the same would disturb the selection

list and create fresh line of litigation. Even if the

petitioners assert that they are not seeking for the

revision of the selection list setting aside any

appointments made, re-alignment of serial numbers of

the candidates regarding the seniority has to be

prepared by the respondents Nos.1, 4 and 5 in

accordance with law, not by the KPSC.

9. Learned AGA appearing for the respondent

Nos.1, 4 and 5 supporting the arguments of the learned

counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 submitted that

there was inordinate delay and laches on the part of the

petitioners in approaching the Tribunal, entertaining

such litigation would open a pandora box disturbing the

rights of the parties who were not arrayed as parties to

the proceedings.

- 12 -

10. We have carefully considered the rival

submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and

perused the material on record.

11. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were

appointed in the year 1999 pursuant to the Notification

dated 16.10.1996 issued by the KPSC inviting the

applications for the selection of Head Masters/Head

Mistress in the High Schools of the Department of

Public Education. The petitioners have approached the

respondents seeking for extending the benefits to them

on parity with the benefits extended to B.L. Narayan

consequent to the disposal of the W.P.(C) No.232/1999

before the Hon'ble Apex Court.

12. The arguments of the learned counsel

appearing for the respondents that the petitioners were

fence-sitters, they had not approached the Court within

a reasonable time, revision of selection list thereby

- 13 -

upsetting or interfering with the rights of the other

candidates who had been selected, appointed and are in

service would be unsustainable, has considerable force.

We approve the view expressed by the Tribunal

inasmuch as the select list published by the KPSC as

far back as on 25.02.1999. The rights of the other

individuals cannot be disturbed at this length of time,

more particularly when they are not arrayed as parties

to the proceedings. This view is fortified by the judgment

of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case Bharat Sanchar

Nigam Limited vs. Ghanshyam Dass and others

reported in (2011) 4 SCC 374, wherein the Hon'ble

Apex Court has categorically held that where only the

affected parties approached the Court and relief is given

to those parties, the fence-sitters who did not approach

the court cannot claim that such relief should have

been extended to them thereby upsetting or interfering

with the rights which had accrued to others.

- 14 -

      13.    The         Hon'ble         Apex       Court        in

W.P.(C)No.232/1999            filed     by     B.L.Narayan      has

categorically      observed     that     the    learned     counsel

appearing for the State is not in a position to contradict

the statement made by the petitioner that KPSC has

appointed more than the required number of 351, by

appointing less meritorious candidates and the

petitioners have secured more marks than selected

candidates who have been selected under 30%

reservation. It has also been recorded that the

declaration made on behalf of the State that the State is

agreeable to verify the number given to the petitioner

and if he has secured excess marks of the last

candidate selected in women candidate, his case would

be considered and appointment would be given.

Considering these aspects, the said petition came to be

disposed of with a direction to consider the claim of the

petitioner therein B.L. Narayan having regard to the

principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil

- 15 -

Appeal No.3132/2007, supra, directing the respondents

to take a decision within a period of two months

observing that if the petitioner - B.L. Narayan is found

to be eligible, he would be given appointment. However,

he would not be entitled for backwages.

14. It is not in dispute that B.L.Narayan was

appointed on 29.09.2009 and was placed at Sl.No.94-A.

As such, the focal point of the controversy lies in a

narrow compass i.e., to extend the benefits on parity

with B.L.Narayan re-aligning the Serial Numbers of the

selection list which would enure to the benefit of the

petitioners regarding the promotion and retirement

benefits. Petitioners have made it very clear that they

are not insisting for any monetary benefits but their

claim may be considered regarding the inter-se seniority

in terms of the benefit extended to B.L.Narayan since he

was placed at Sl.No.94-A of the selection list. This

argument of the petitioners herein also has some force.

- 16 -

However, no such relief can be extended to the

petitioners in the absence of the other parties who

would be affected by such re-alignment of serial

numbers in the selection list.

15. Hence, we deem it appropriate to direct the

respondent Nos.1, 4 and 5 to consider the case of the

petitioners for the benefit of notional seniority given to

B.L. Narayana pursuant to the orders passed by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in W.P.(C)No.232/1999 on

29.07.2009 vide Annexure-A4 dated 29.09.2009,

without any monetary benefits and other consequential

benefits, after providing an opportunity of hearing to all

the affected parties. Such decision shall be taken by the

respondent Nos.1, 4 and 5 in an expedite manner, in

any event, within a period of six months from the date

of receipt of certified copy of the order. Ordered

accordingly.

- 17 -

It is made clear that the finding of the Tribunal

insofar as the final selection list published on

25.02.1999 remains undisturbed.

Writ petition stands disposed of as indicated

above.

All the pending I.As. stand disposed of

accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

Dvr/PMR