Karnataka High Court
Mahesh S/O Hanamaraddi Hebbal vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 July, 2023
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6657
WP No. 105085 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO. 105085 OF 2021 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
MAHESH S/O HANAMARADDI HEBBAL,
AGE. 33 YEARS, OCC. WORKING AS ASSISTANT
PROFESSOR OF LAW, KARNATAKA PROGRESSIVE
EDUCATION SOCIETY'S KPES LAW COLLEGE DHARWAD, R/O.
"SHRIPOONRNA" #5/20-B,
VENKATAGIRI, SARASWATPUR, DHARWAD,
DIST. DHARWAD-580002.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SUNIL S DESAI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF LAW JUSTICE & HUMAN RIGHTS,
VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.
Digitally
signed by
RAKESH S
2. THE COMMISSIONER,
HARIHAR DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
RAKESH Location: TECHNICAL EDUCATION BHAVAN,
S High Court of
Karnataka,
HARIHAR Dharwad PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.
Date:
2023.07.07
11:19:36
+0530
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR,
DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
REGIONAL OFFICE, MINI VIDHAN SOUDHA,
DHARWAD-580001.
4. KARNATAKA PROGRESSIVE EDUCATION SOCIETY'S,
R/BY ITS PRESIDENT, D C COMPOUND, DHARWAD,
DIST. DHARWAD-580001.
5. KPES LAW COLLEGE,
R/BY ITS PRINCIPAL,
D C COMPOUND, DHARWAD,
DIST. DHARWAD-580001.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6657
WP No. 105085 of 2021
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VINAYAK S KULKARNI, AGA FOR R1-R3;
SRI. B V SOMAPUR, ADVOCATE R4 & R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT BY QUASHING
IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO. PÁ²E /14/ ¯Á / SÁPÁPÁ /2012-
13/£Éë-2(¨sÁUÀ -2) DATED 20.04.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
AS PER ANNEXURE-N, AS ILLEGAL ARBITRARY AND IN VIOLATION OF
ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA & ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B'
GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The petitioner who is working as Assistant Professor
in law in the 5th respondent-Institution has approached this
Court assailing the endorsement Annexure-N dated 20.04.2021
issued by the 1st respondent and he has also sought for a writ
of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to modify the order
of grant-in-aid dated 26.08.2015 by including the name of the
petitioner along with other employees of the Institution who
were brought under the purview of grant-in-aid.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. Facts leading to filing of this writ petition narrated
briefly are; the petitioner was appointed to the post of Assistant
Professor in law in the 5th respondent-Institution in the year
2011. The 5th respondent-Institution was admitted to the
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6657
WP No. 105085 of 2021
benefits of grant-in-aid on 26.08.2015 vide Annexure-D. The
proposal forwarded by the Institution for approval of the post of
the petitioner along with other three candidates for the benefits
of grant-in-aid was rejected by the 1st respondent on
26.08.2015 vide Annexure-D, on the ground that the petitioner
had not cleared NET/SLET nor he had a Ph.D. decree. However,
two years time was granted to the petitioner and other
candidates, whose name was proposed by the Institution, to re-
submit their papers after they obtain necessary qualification.
The Institution thereafter had forwarded the case of the
petitioner and another for admitting their post for the benefit of
grant-in-aid onceagain in the year 2016. Though the petitioner
was duly qualified, his case was not considered by the 1 st
respondent and on the other hand, candidature of Smt.Vidya
S.Shettammanvar was approved for the benefit of grant-in-aid
on the ground that she was senior by age to the petitioner.
4. Thereafter, the Institution had issued a notification
calling upon applications to fill up the post held by the
petitioner and in the said notification, the post was reserved for
SC/ST category. The petitioner had approached this Court
challenging the said notification in WP No.107160/2016. The
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6657
WP No. 105085 of 2021
said writ petition was disposed of by the Coordinate Bench of
this Court along with similar other connected writ petitions by
order dated 01.08.2017 and a direction was issued to the 1 st
respondent to re-consider the representation of the petitioner,
if the representations are onceagain forwarded by the
Management with an undertaking that future vacancy shall be
filled by reserved candidates and the Government was directed
to approve the posts of the petitioner and issue modified order
on taking such undertaking from the Management, a direction
was issued to the Government to modify its earlier order dated
26.08.2015 incorporating the name of the petitioner in the
approved list of teaching and non-teaching staff.
5. The said order was challenged by the State
Government before the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in
Writ appeal No.100388/2018 and connected writ appeals,
which was disposed of on 16.10.2019 modifying the orders
passed by the learned Single Judge insofar as it relates to
issuing a positive direction to the State Government and the
Hon'ble Division Bench had directed the State Government to
consider the representation of the petitioner by a speaking
order in the light of the orders passed by this Court in WP
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6657
WP No. 105085 of 2021
No.100955/2012, WP Nos.20635-636/1999 and Writ Appeal
Nos.55-56/2002. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner had
given a representation on 06.11.2019 and considering the
same, the 2nd respondent has issued impugned endorsement at
Annexure-N. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is
before this Court.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
2nd respondent has failed to comply the direction issued by this
Court in the earlier round of litigation. He submits that the
petitioner's appointment was prior to the notification for
admitting the benefits of grant-in-aid. He submits that
therefore the respondents cannot insist that the post of the
petitioner is required to be reserved for any specific category.
He submits that in the orders passed in WP No.100955/2012,
WP Nos.20635-636/1999 and Writ Appeal Nos.55-56/2002, this
aspect of the matter has been already considered and it is
under the said circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court
had directed the State Government to consider the
representation in the light of the orders passed in
W.P.No.10955/2012 and Writ Appeal Nos.55-56/2002. He
submits that the 2nd respondent has considered the petitioner's
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6657
WP No. 105085 of 2021
post as a backlog post and thereby had applied the judgment in
the case of Union of India and Others Vs.M. Selvakumar
and another reported in (2017)3 SCC 504, which is not at all
applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
He accordingly prays to allow the writ petition.
7. Per contra, learned AGA has argued in support of
the impugned endorsement and submits that since the
appointment of the petitioner was made in violation of
reservation policy, the 2nd respondent was justified in issuing
the impugned order. He accordingly, prays to dismiss the writ
petition.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the
arguments addressed on both sides and also perused the
material on record.
9. In the earlier round of litigation, this Court had
specifically directed respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider the
representation of the petitioner in the light of the orders passed
by this Court in WP No.100955/2012, WP Nos.20635-636/1999
and Writ Appeal Nos.55-56/2002 and taking into consideration
the orders passed in said cases, this Court had also held that
respondent-Government shall provide grant-in-aid for the
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6657
WP No. 105085 of 2021
period for which the petitioners are entitled and insofar as
future vacancies are concerned, the Institution is required to
follow the reservation policy, and if there is any violation of the
reservation policy, the Authorities are permitted to take
appropriate action, as deemed fit in accordance with law.
10. It is not in dispute that the orders passed in WP
No.100955/2012, WP Nos.20635-636/1999 and Writ Appeal
Nos.55-56/2002 has attained finality. Under the circumstances,
the 2nd respondent ought to have complied with the direction
issued by this Court in the earlier round of litigation and ought
to have passed orders on the representation made by the
petitioner in the light of the directions issued by this Court.
However, the 2nd respondent has considered the post of the
petitioner as backlog post and accordingly, having applied the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
M.Selvakumar (supra) has issued the impugned
endorsement stating that the petitioner's post cannot be
considered for admitting benefits of grant-in-aid. Under the
circumstances, the impugned endorsement at Annexure-N
dated 20.04.2021 issued by the 2nd respondent cannot be
sustained. Accordingly, the following:
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6657
WP No. 105085 of 2021
ORDER
Writ petition is partly allowed.
The impugned endorsement at Annexure-N dated
20.04.2021 issued by the 2nd respondent is quashed and the
matter is remitted to the 2nd respondent/competent authority
to consider the representation of the petitioner afresh strictly in
compliance of the orders passed by the Division Bench of this
Court in Writ Appeal No.100388/2018 and connected writ
appeals disposed of on 16.10.2019.
The said exercise shall be done by the 2nd respondent as
expeditiously as possible, but not later than a period of six
weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Kgk/Ct:Bck
