Karnataka High Court
Lingayath Education Association vs Sri Siddappa S Doddalingannavar on 16 January, 2021
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.23664/2016 (S - RES)
BETWEEN
1. LINGAYATH EDUCATION ASSOCIATION,
TOWN HALL,
DHARWAD - 580 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
SRI.C.B.YALIGAR.
2. THE CHAIRMAN
SRI R.U.BELLAKKI
LINGAYATH EDUCATION ASSOCIATION,
TOWN HALL DHARWAD - 580 001.
3. THE SECRETARY
SRI M.U.PATIL,
LINGAYATH EDUCATION ASSOCIATION,
TOWN HALL, DHARWAD - 580 001.
4. HURAKADLI AJJA LAW COLLEGE
TOWN HALL,
DHARWAD - 580 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SRI.SHIVAPPA V. SOGI.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI M.NIKHILESH RAO, ADVOCATE FOR M/S INDUS LAW
(VIDEO CONFERENCING))
2
AND
1. SRI SIDDAPPA S. DODDALINGANNAVAR
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
CLAIMING TO BE A FULL TIME LECTURER
HURKADLI AJJA LAW COLLEGE,
DHARWAD,
RESIDING AT MANE CHAWL,
SAIDAPUR,
DHARWAD - 580 008.
2. SRI GANGADHARA SHIVALINGA KAMBLE
AGED 38 YEARS,
CLAIMING TO BE A FULL TIME LECTURER
HURKADLI AJJA LAW COLLEGE,
DHARWAD,
RESIDING AT
DIVYA DHARE, PLOT NO.2,
CHANNABASAVESHWARA NAGAR,
DHARWAD - 580 007.
3. KARNATAKA STATE SCHEDULE CASTE &
SCHEDULE TRIBE COMMISSION
NO.14/3, 2ND FLOOR,
CFC BUILDING,
NRUPATUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
4. THE VICE CHANCELLOR
KARNATAKA STATE LAW UNIVERSITY,
NAVA NAGAR,
HUBLI - 580 020.
5. THE REGISTRAR (ADMINISTRATION)
KARNATAKA STATE LAW UNIVERSITY
NAVA NAGAR
HUBLI - 580 020.
3
6. REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR
COLLEGE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DHARWAD - 580 007.
7. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
VIKAS SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI C.JAGADISH, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SMT.M.C.NAGASHREE, AGA FOR R6 AND R7;
R1, R2, R4 AND R5 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO RESTRAIN THE
R-3 FROM CONTINUING WITH THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS IN DISPUTE NO.434/2015 VIDE ANNX-A AND B
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE SCHEDULE CASTE AND SCHEDULE
TRIBES COMMISSION, BANGALORE, INITIATED ON THE BASIS OF
THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN BY THE R-1 AND 2.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners in this writ petition have sought for a writ
in the nature of prohibition restraining the third respondent
Commission to proceed with the dispute pending before it
instituted by respondents 1 and 2.
2. For the sake of convenience the parties will be
referred to as the 'Institution' and the 'Employees'.
3. Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the writ
petition are as follows:-
The Employees pursuant to an advertisement notified by
the Institution were appointed as full time lecturers on
temporary basis with effect from 13.12.2004. Later, on
28.12.2005, they were appointed as full time lecturers on
completion of their probation. After about six years of their
functioning as lecturers, it was noticed that the Employees had
not surrendered their Sanadh to the Bar Council as required,
as they were working as full time lecturers in the Institution.
It was also noticed that the Employees were practicing in
various Courts and quasi judicial bodies during working hours
of the Institution. This resulted in the Institution passing an
order modifying the appointment of the Employees from
permanent lecturers to part time lecturers.
4. This action of the Institution was called in question
before this Court in W.P.No.61257-59/2012, which was
dismissed by an order dated 05.12.2012, upholding the action
of the Institution in modifying the status of the Employees
from permanent to part time lecturers solely on the ground
that the Employees who were Advocates had not surrendered
their Sanadh. The same was challenged by the Employees
before the Division Bench in W.A.No.30170-172/2013, which
came to be allowed in part, by remitting the matter back to
the Institution to hear the Employees and then pass
appropriate orders.
5. After the matter being remitted by the Division Bench,
the Institution heard the Employees and again passed the
same order modifying the status of the Employees from full
time lecturers to part time lecturers. This was challenged by
the Employees before Educational Appellate Tribunal in
M.A.(EAT)1/2014, which also came to be dismissed on
18.04.2015.
6. The Employees did not challenge this order passed by
the Tribunal before any judicial fora, but chose to approach
the third respondent - Karnataka State Scheduled Castes &
Scheduled Tribes Commission (hereinafter referred to as the
'Commission' for short) seeking the following prayers:
"21. ¥ÁæxÀð£É: F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ªÀĺÀ¤ÃAiÀÄgÀ°è ¥Áæyð¹PÉƼÀÄîªÀÅzÉãÉAzÀgÉÃ,
1. F ªÉÄîÌAqÀ J®è PÁgÀtUÀ¼Àr vÁªÀÅ C£ÀÄzÁ£ÀPÉÆ̼À¥Àr¹zÀ
JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀ £ÀA1 jAzÀ 5£ÉÃzÀªÀgÀ ºÀÄgÀPÀrè CdÓ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ
PÁ¯ÉÃdÄ zsÁgÀªÁqÀ EªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀļÀÄî ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀgÀPÁgÀPÉÌ ¤Ãr
ªÉÄïÁÌt¹zÀ ¸ÀzÀjà ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÉÃvÀ£Á£ÀÄzÁ£ÀPÉÆ̼À
¥Àr¹PÉÆArzÀÝjAzÀ CªÀÅUÀ¼À£ÀÄß gÀzÀÄÝ¥Àr¸À®Ä «£ÀAw EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
2. ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgÉzÀÄ «£ÀAw¹PÉƼÀÄîªÀÅzÉãÉAzÀgÉÃ, CfðzÁgÀgÁzÀ
£ÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀzÀjà PÁ¯ÉÃf£À°è ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 9-10 ªÀµÀðUÀ½AzÀ
¤gÀAvÀgÀªÁV zÀPÀëvɬÄAzÀ DqÀ½vÀ ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀĪÀgÀÄ ¤ÃrzÀ C®à
¸ÀA§¼ÀPÉÌ ¤µÀ̼ÀAPÀ¢AzÀ ºÁUÀÆ zÀPÀëvɬÄAzÀ ¸ÉÃªÉ ¸À°è¹zÀÝjAzÀ
ªÀÄvÀÄÛ «ÄøÀ¯Áw ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀéAiÀÄ £ÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ PÁ¯ÉÃdÄ
C£ÀÄzÁ£ÀPÉÆ̼À ¥ÀqÀĪÀ ¥ÀæQæAiÉÄAiÀÄ°è CªÀ±ÀåPÀ ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼À°è
§gÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ £ÀªÀÄä£ÀÄß ¥ÀjUÀt¹ £ÀªÀÄä ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼À£ÀÄß
ªÉÃvÀ£Á£ÀÄzÁ£ÀPÉÌ M¼À¥Àr¸À®Ä PÀæªÀÄ dgÀÄV¸ÀĪÀAvÉ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ ¥ÀlÖ
JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀ 1jAzÀ 4£ÉÃzÀªÀjUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀgÀPÁgÀPÉÌ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ
¤zÉÃð±À£À ¤ÃqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ.
3. ªÀiÁ£Àå DAiÉÆÃUÀPÌÉ «£ÀAw¹PÉƼÀÄîªÅÀ zÉãÉAzÀgÃÉ CfðzÁgÀjUÉ
d£ÉêÀj 2012jAzÀ E°èAiÀĪÀgÉUÉ PÉÆqÀ¨ÃÉ PÁzÀ ªÉÃvÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß 18%
§rØ ¸ÀªÉÄÃvÀ PÉÆqÀ®Ä JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀ £ÀA1 jAzÀ 4£ÉÃzÀªÀjUÉ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ
¤zÉÃð±À£À ¤ÃqÉÆÃtªÁUÀ¨ÃÉ PÀÄ.
4. ªÀiÁ£Àå DAiÉÆÃUÀPÌÉ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ «£ÀAw¹PÉƼÀÄîªÅÀ zÉãÉAzÀgÃÉ
CfðzÁgÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ¤gÀAvÀgÀªÁV £ÀqÉzÀ ±ÉÆõÀuÉ, zÀ¨Áâ½PÉ,
zËdð£ÀåUÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß J¸ÀVzÀ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀ 1jAzÀ 5gÀªÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ¥Àj²µÀÖ
eÁw ¥Àj²µÀÖ ¥ÀAUÀqÀUÀ¼À zËdð£Àå PÁ¬ÄzÉ C¢ü¤AiÀĪÀÄzÀrAiÀÄ°è
¥ÀæPÀgÀt zÁR°¹ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀæªÄÀ PÉÊUÉƼÀî®Ä ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ
E¯ÁSÉUÉ ¤zÉÃð±À£À ¤ÃqÉÆÃtªÁUÀ¨ÃÉ PÀÄ.
5. EzÀPÉÌ vÀ¦àzÀÝ°è ¸ÀzÀgÀ PÁ¯ÉÃf£À C£ÀÄzÁ£ÀªÀ£ÄÀ ß PÀÆqÀ¯ÉÃ
gÀzÀÄÝUÉƽ¸À®Ä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀ 1jAzÀ 4£ÉÃzÀªÀgÀ ºÀÄgÀPÀrè CdÓ
PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÁ¯ÉÃf£À ªÀiÁ£ÀåvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀÆqÀ¯ÃÉ gÀzÀÄÝUÉƽ¸À®Ä
PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀgÀPÁgÀzÀ C¢üãÀ PÁgÀåzÀ²ð PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ E¯ÁSÉ (ªÀiÁ£ÀªÀ
ºÀPÀÄÌUÀ¼ÀÄ) PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀgÀPÁgÀ «zsÁ£À¸ËzsÀ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ EªÀjUÉ
²¥sÁgÀ¸ÀÄì ªÀiÁqÉÆÃtªÁUÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ."
and upon which, a notice was issued to the Institution by the
Commission seeking to reply as to why the prayers that were
sought should not be granted. It is after receipt of the notice
from the Commission, the Institution has filed this writ petition
seeking a direction to prohibit the third respondent from
proceeding with the matter.
7. This Court by its order dated 30.06.2017 has granted
an interim order of stay of further proceedings, which is in
operation even as on date.
8. Heard Sri.M.Nikhilesh Rao, learned counsel or
petitioners, Smt.M.C.Nagashree, learned Additional
Government Advocate for respondents 6 and 7 and
Sri.C.Jagadish, learned counsel for respondent No.3.
Respondents 1, 2, 4 and 5 are all served and unrepresented.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-
Institution would submit that the proceedings ought not to
have been entertained by the third respondent - Commission,
as the Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain such
disputes. Since the proceedings are without jurisdiction, a
writ of prohibition is to be issued prohibiting the third
respondent from hearing the matter any further.
10. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing
for the third respondent - Commission would submit that the
Commission has every jurisdiction to entertain any kind of
grievance of persons belonging to either Scheduled Castes or
Scheduled Tribes and the proceedings entertained are just and
proper.
11. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material on record.
12. The facts are not in dispute. The Employees were
appointed to work in the fourth respondent - College. They
were practicing Advocates when they were appointed and in
terms of law, they ought to have surrendered their Sanadh
once they became full time lecturers. Since they had not done
so, the Institution modified the appointment of the petitioners
from full time basis to part time basis on the ground that they
had not surrendered their Sanadh even after notices being
issued to them.
13. This Court dismissed the challenge of the Employees
for modification of their appointment from full time to part
time basis. The learned Division Bench set aside the order of
the learned Single Judge and directed the Institution to hear
the Employees and pass orders. After the Employees were
heard and considering their reply, the Institution again passed
an order modifying the appointment of the Employees from
full time to part time. This was challenged by the Employees
before the Tribunal, which also came to be rejected. It is after
that, the Employees have approached the Commission seeking
the afore-extracted prayer.
14. Any consideration by the Commission on the prayers
that have been sought would amount to sitting in appeal over
the findings of the Tribunal. The Commission is not the
Appellate Authority to consider whether the appeal dismissed
by the Tribunal was justified or otherwise. I say so, as the
petition filed before the Commission informs the Commission
of every proceeding that have happened before this Court and
before the Tribunal. The Commission entertaining the prayers
now will have to adjudicate upon the rights of the Employees,
which power the Commission admittedly does not have.
15. The Commission as is a creature under Article 338 of
the Constitution of India, would definitely have jurisdiction to
entertain any grievance of persons belonging to scheduled
castes or scheduled tribes. But, such jurisdiction can result
only in a recommendation to the appropriate Government and
adjudication of disputes inter se between the parties. Grant of
reliefs that are sought in the case before it, impugned herein,
is not available to the Commission in the facts and
circumstances of the case, as the right of the Employees has
already been adjudicated by a competent Tribunal.
16. The Commission is neither a Tribunal nor a Court to
adjudicate disputes or sit in appeal over the order passed by
the Tribunal declining the claim of the Employees. It is in the
peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the Commission
had no jurisdiction even to entertain the dispute, as making
any recommendation even in terms of the statute is not
available to the Commission as there is already an
adjudication of the claim of the Employees before a competent
forum. In this regard, it is apposite to refer to the judgment
of the Apex Court in the case of COLLECTOR v. AJIT JOGI
reported in (2011) 10 SCC 357, which reads as follows:
"17. It is evident from Article 338 as it
originally stood, that the Commission was
constituted to protect and safeguard the persons
belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes by ensuring: (i) anti-discrimination, (ii)
affirmative action by way of reservation and
empowerment, and (iii) redressal of grievances.
The duties under clause 5(b) of Article 338 did
not extend to either issue of caste/tribe
certificate or to revoke or cancel a caste/tribe
certificate or to decide upon the validity of the
caste certificate. Having regard to sub-clause (b)
of clause (5) of Article 338, the Commission
could no doubt entertain and enquire into any
specific complaint about deprivation of any rights
and safeguards of Scheduled Tribes. When such
a complaint was received, the Commission
could enquire into such complaint and give
a report to the Central Government or the
State Government requiring effective
implementation of the safeguards and
measures for the protection and welfare
and socio-economic development of the
Scheduled Tribes. This power to enquire
into "deprivation of rights and safeguards
of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes" did not include the power to enquire
into and decide the caste/tribe status of
any particular individual. In fact, as there was
no effective mechanism to verify the caste/tribe
certificates issued to individuals, this Court
in Madhuri Patil v. Commr., Tribal
Development [(1994) 6 SCC 241 : 1994 SCC
(L&S) 1349 : (1994) 28 ATC 259] directed
constitution of scrutiny committees.
22. It is only after recording the said
findings, the Commission directed the State
Government to verify the genuineness of the ST
certificate obtained by the first respondent and
initiate action for cancellation of the certificate
and also initiate criminal action. All these were
unwarranted. As noticed above, the power
under clause 5(b) of Article 338 (or under
any of the other sub-clauses of clause 5 of
Article 338) did not entitle the Commission
to hold an inquiry in regard to the caste
status of any particular individual, summon
documents, and record a finding that his
caste certificate is bogus or false. If such a
complaint was received about the deprivation of
the rights and safeguards, it will have to refer
the matter to the State Government or the
authority concerned with verification of
caste/tribal status, to take necessary action. It
can certainly follow up the matter with the State
Government or such authority dealing with the
matter to ensure that the complaint is inquired
into and appropriate decision is taken. If the
State Government or the authorities did not take
action, the Commission could either itself or
through the affected persons, initiate legal action
to ensure that there is a proper verification of
the caste certificate, but it cannot undertake the
exercise itself, as has been done in this case."
(Emphasis applied)
17. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the
case of Ajit Jogi (supra), it is a fit case where a writ of
prohibition has to be issued in the light of the fact that there is
no final order passed by the Commission, as this Court by an
interim order had stayed all further proceedings before the
Commission. Therefore, the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ petition is allowed.
(ii) A Writ of Prohibition is issued restraining the
Commission from entertaining the dispute brought
before it by the Employees of the Institution in
dispute No.434/2015.
Sd/-
JUDGE
bkp
CT:MJ
