Smt. Saraswati D/O Late ... vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 982 Kant

                                1




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  KALABURAGI BENCH

     DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

                         BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH


     WRIT PETITION No. 223491 OF 2020 (S-RES)

Between:

Smt.Saraswati,
D/o.Late. Gurulingappa,
W/o. Hanamanthrao Patil,
Aged about 48 years,
Occ: Asst. Teacher
Al-Ameen Urdu Primary School,
Sangatarashwadi, Gulbaraga-585 101.
                                           ... Petitioner
(By Sri G.G.Chagashetti, Advocate)

And:

1.     The State of Karnataka,
       By its Secretary,
       Education Department,
       (Primary and Secondary)
       M.S.Building, Bengaluru-01.

2.     Land Regional Commissioner,
       Public Instructions Dept.,
       Gulbarga Dist. Gulbaraga-585 101.

3.     The Deputy Director of
       Public Instructions,
       Gulbarga,
                              2




      Dist. Gulbaraga-585 101.

4.   The Block Education Officer,
     North/South Range Gulbarga,
     Dist. Gulbaraga-585 101.

5.   The Secretary,
     Al-Ameen Education Society,
     Upper Lane, Station Bazar,
     Gulbarga,
     Dist.Gulbaraga-585 101.

6.   The Director,
     (Primary and Secondary),
     Office of the Commissioner for
     Public Instruction Dept.,
     Nurpatunga Road,
     Bangalore-01.
                                            ... Respondents

(By Sri Viranagouda Biradar, AGA for R1 to R4 & R6)
      Notice to R5 is served


      This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India praying to a) Issue a writ of
certiorari and to quash the order dated 31.10.2019 passed
by the 1st respondent in No.ED393 STB 2019 (Part-I)
Bangalore, produced at Annexure-L and etc.,

      In this writ petition, arguments being heard,
judgment reserved, coming on for pronouncement of
orders today, this Court made the following:
                               3




                            ORDER

The petitioner has challenged the order dated

31.10.2019 passed by 1st respondent (Annexure- L) and

also sought for consequential relief of approval of her

appointment as 'Kannada Teacher'. It is the case of the

petitioner that 5th respondent-Management is an aided

Institution and post of 'Assistant Teacher' (Kannada) fell

vacant on account of unauthorized absence of Assistant

Teacher (Kannada) - Smt Dilshad Begum and

accordingly, 5th respondent-Management terminated her

service and appointed the petitioner in the place of Smt

Dilshad Begum for the post of Assistant Teacher

(Kannada) on temporary basis on 13.12.1998 as per

Annexure-A. The termination of services of Smt Dilshad

Begum was resolved by 5th respondent-Management on

10.02.1999 (Annexure- A1). Thereafter, 5th respondent-

Management issued notification/advertisement calling

for appointment for the post of 'Kannada Teacher' as per

Annexure-A2. In pursuance of the same, interview was

conducted and petitioner was selected as per Annexure-

A3. Thereafter, 5th respondent-Management addressed a

letter to the Government for approval of the

appointment of the petitioner as per Annexure-B. In the

meanwhile, the petitioner filed WP No.207253/2014

before this Court seeking direction for approval of her

appointment and as per the direction of this Court,

dated 03.07.2019, 1st respondent has passed the

impugned order dated 31.10.2019, rejecting the claim

made by petitioner for approval on the ground that the

5th respondent-Management has not followed the

relevant Rules at the time of appointment of the

petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the order of 1st

respondent-Management, petitioner has filed this writ

petition.

2. Sri G G. Chagashetti, learned counsel for the

petitioner submitted that impugned order passed by the

respondent-authorities is bad in law as 5th respondent-

Management has rightly terminated the services of Smt

Dilshad Begum and in her place, the petitioner was

appointed following the relevant Rules of appointment.

He further contended that 5th respondent-Management

conducted the interview and appointed the petitioner

through issuance of advertisement and therefore, the

appointment of the petitioner is in accordance with the

Rule 6 (2) of Karnataka Educational Institutions

(Discipline and Control) Rules,1978 (for short "Rules

1978") and therefore, he contended that the impugned

order passed by 1st respondent, declining to approve the

appointment of the petitioner is bad in law.

3. Per contra, Sri Viranagouda Biradar, learned

AGA submitted that the action of the respondent-

authorities, rejecting the appointment of the petitioner is

in accordance with the relevant Rules of appointment

and therefore, he supports the impugned order.

4. In the background of these factual aspects,

the relevant Rules for the appointment of Kannada

Teacher in the 5th respondent-Management is Rules

1978. Rule 6 of the Rules 1978 provides for method of

recruitment. It conotes that 5th respondent-

Management, is competent enough to invite the

applications from the eligible candidates through

advertisement/notification and thereafter, select the

candidates as per Rule 6(2) of the Rules,1978 which

provides that the selection committee shall consists of

the Head of the Institution/Management or his nominee,

Head of the Department or his nominee and an expert in

the subject furnished by the Head of the Department.

Suffice to say that the Rule provides that the

Institution/Management shall secure prior approval from

the Department/Government-authorities for such

selection.

5. In the case on hand, the perusal of the

Annexure-A dated 13.12.1998 envisages that services of

Smt Dilshad Begum was terminated on account of not

reporting for the duty and as such, appointed the

petitioner on temporary basis. Annexure- A1, is the

resolution(Annexure-A) passed by 5th respondent-

Management approving the termination order(Annexure-

A1) of Smt Dilshad Begum. Though 5th respondent-

Management invited applications for appointment of

'Kannada Teacher' through advertisement/notification

and the petitioner was selected as per Annexure- A3,

however on perusal of the Annexure- A3 would indicate

that no nominee of the respondent-authorities had

participated in the selection process inter-alia that 5th

respondent-Management has not secured prior approval

from the respondent-Government while issuing the

advertisement or at the time of conducting interview to

the respective candidates and in that view of the matter,

I find that the 1st respondent rightly rejected the

recommendation made by the 5th respondent-

Management to approve the appointment of the

petitioner for the post of Assistant Kannada Teacher. In

view of the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is

dismissed as devoid of merits. However, liberty is

reserved to the 5th respondent-Management to re-do the

process after complying the provisions contained in the

relevant Rules, as narrated above.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SB