Karnataka High Court
The President vs The Commissioner Of Public ... on 29 March, 2022
Bench: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 64820 OF 2010 (S-RES)
C/w. WRIT PETITION NO. 64819 OF 2010 (S-RES)
In W.P. No.64820/2010:
BETWEEN:
SRI. NEELKANT S/O VISHNU YAJI,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER,
R/O: BAILUR, TQ: HONNAVAR,
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. V.G. BHAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR PUBLIC
INSTRUCTIONS, DHARWAD-560008
2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
BELGAUM DIVISION, BELGAUM.
3. SRI. MANJUNATH SHIVARAM BHAT,
Digitally AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: ARCHAK,
signed by J
MAMATHA R/O: IDAGUNJI, TQ: HONNAVAR,
J Location:
MAMATHA Dharwad DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.
Date:
2022.03.31
09:58:50 4. THE PRESIDENT
+0530
SRI SIDDIVINAYAKA PATHA SHALA,
IDAGUNJI, TQ: HONNAVAR,
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.
5. SRI. MADHAV PANDIT
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: DOCTOR,
R/O UPPONI, TQ: HONNAVAR,
DIST: UTTAR KANNAD.
-2-
WP No. 64820 of 2010
C/W WP No. 64819 of 2010
6. KARNATAKA SANSKRIT UNIVERSITY, BENGALURU,
REP BY ITS REGISTRAR (ADMINISTRATION),
PAMPA MAHAKARI ROAD, CHAMARAJ PETH,
BENGALURU-18.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.S. Kalasurmath, HCGP for R1 & R2;
Shri Suresh S.Bhat, Advocate for R3;
Shri V.M. Sheelavant, Advocate for R4;
Shri Ganapati M.Bhat, Advocate for R5;
Shri C. Venkatesh & Shri M.S. Hiremath, Advocate for R6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER PASSED BY R-1 IN APPEAL NO.113/2003-04/540
DATED 12/5/10 VIDE ANNEXURE-K.
In W.P. No.64819/2010:
BETWEEN:
THE PRESIDENT,
SHRI SIDDI VINAYKA PATHA SHALA,
IDAGUNJI, TQ.: HONNAVAR,
DIST.: UTTAR KANNDA.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. J.S SHETTY & SHRI ANANTH BHAT, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR PUBLIC
INSTRUCTIONS, DHARWAD-560008
2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
BELGAUM DIVISION, BELGAUM.
3. SRI. MANJUNATH SHIVARAM BHAT,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: ARCHAK,
R/O: IDAGUNJI, TQ: HONNAVAR,
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.
-3-
WP No. 64820 of 2010
C/W WP No. 64819 of 2010
4. SRI. NEELKANT S/O VISHNU YAJI,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER,
R/O: BAILUR, TQ: HONNAVAR,
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.
5. SRI. MADHAV PANDIT
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: DOCTOR,
R/O UPPONI, TQ: HONNAVAR,
DIST: UTTAR KANNAD.
6. KARNATAKA SANSKRIT UNIVERSITY, BENGALURU,
REP BY ITS REGISTRAR (ADMINISTRATION),
PAMPA MAHAKARI ROAD, CHAMARAJ PETH,
BENGALURU-18.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.S. Kalasurmath, HCGP for R1 & R2;
Shri Suresh S.Bhat, Advocate for C/R3;
Shri V.G. Bhat, Advocate for R4;
Shri Ganapati M.Bhat, Advocate for R5;
Shri C. Venkatesh & Shri M.S. Hiremath, Advocate for R6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER PASSED BY R-1 IN APPEAL NO.113/2003-04/540
DATED 12/5/10 VIDE ANNEXURE-K.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR FINAL
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. These writ petitions are filed challenging the order
passed by the Commissioner in Revision Petition under Section
131 of the Education Act.
2. A notification was issued for filling up the post of
Assistant Teacher in the fourth respondent Institution, which is
WP No. 64820 of 2010
C/W WP No. 64819 of 2010
an aided Institution. Pursuant to the notification, applications
were filed by several people including the petitioner and the
third respondent. The petitioner was found suitable by the
Selection Committee and accordingly he was appointed.
3. This appointment of the petitioner was challenged
by the fourth respondent contending that the entire process of
recruitment was full of irregularities and the entire process was
vitiated.
4. The Commissioner on examining the matter in
detail has recorded a finding that the Block Education Officer
had submitted a report citing the irregularities and on perusal
of the materials before him, it was clear to him that the
allegations made regarding recruitment process were justified.
5. The Commissioner has therefore proceeded to set
aside the approval granted in favour of the petitioner's
appointment and has directed that the entire process of
recruitment to be done afresh.
6. The beneficiary of the notification i.e.,
Shri Neelakant and the Institution which had appointed him and
WP No. 64820 of 2010
C/W WP No. 64819 of 2010
had sought for his approval are before this Court challenging
the order of the Commissioner.
7. One of the main contentions advanced by the
learned counsel Shri J.S. Shetty is that the petitioner who had
invoked the remedy under Section 131 was himself not
qualified to be appointed and therefore the revision could not
be entertained at his instance.
8. He also submitted that on a close examination of
the entire process of recruitment, it would be clear that there
were no irregularities that could be discerned and therefore,
the order of the Commissioner cannot be sustained.
9. The Commissioner in exercise of his revisional
powers has examined the records and has formed an opinion
that the entire process of recruitment was vitiated and the
serious allegations made with regard to the recruitment had a
ring of truth around them. The Commissioner being the
revisional authority is empowered to examine the process of
recruitment and if he has formed an opinion that the process of
recruitment was vitiated, it would not be appropriate or proper
WP No. 64820 of 2010
C/W WP No. 64819 of 2010
for this Court to sit in a judgment over his opinion in the
exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.
10. Ultimately all that has been done by the
Commissioner is that he has directed the recruitment process
to be redone afresh. It is to be borne in mind that the petition
is of the year 2010 and admittedly the petitioner has been out
of employment from 2010, though it is contended that he
continued in employment and the wages were paid by the
fourth respondent till 2018.
11. The fact of the matter is that the State whose
approval was necessary for the appointment did not consider
the appointment of the petitioner to be valid and has not paid
the salary to the petitioner right from 2010. Merely because the
Institution is supporting the petitioner that does not mean that
the appointment of the petitioner will have to be up held. It is
borne in mind that in the ultimate analysis the authorities
under the Education Act are to be satisfied that the required
process have been followed in the matter of recruitment and if
WP No. 64820 of 2010
C/W WP No. 64819 of 2010
it is found doubtful or circumspect the only consequence would
be that the entire process will have to be redone afresh in
accordance with law. I find no reason to entertain these writ
petition and both the writ petitions are rejected.
SD/-
JUDGE
Vnp*
