Karnataka High Court
Sri.M.Bhima vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 June, 2023
Bench: Chief Justice, M.G.S. Kamal
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:19970-DB
WA No. 209 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
WRIT APPEAL NO. 209 OF 2023 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. M.BHIMA
S/O LATE MALAVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
R/AT LALAGHATTA VILLAGE
CHANNAPATNA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 571 511.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SOMASHEKHARAIAH R.P., ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by AND:
SUMA B N
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Location:
High DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Court of M.S. BUILDING
Karnataka BANGALORE - 560 001
REP BY SECRETARY.
2. THE COMMISSIONER
DEPT. OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
BANGALORE - 560 001.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:19970-DB
WA No. 209 of 2023
3. THE DIRECTOR
DEPT. OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
BANGALORE -560 001.
4. THE DY. DIRECTOR
DEPT. OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
(HIGHER EDUCATION)
RAMANAGARA DIST.
RAMANAGARA - 571 511.
5. THE SECRETARY
VAKKALIGARA SARVAJANIKA VIDHYARTHI NILAYA
CHANNAPATNA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DIST.
RAMANAGARA - 571 511.
6. SRI. C.B. KUMAR
MAJOR
PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER
VAKKALIGARA SARVAJANIKA
VIDYARTHI NILAYA
CHANNAPATNA TALUK
RAMANAGAR DIST - 571 511.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.S. MAHENDRA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED
06/12/2022 IN WP NO.25020/2015 AND ALLOW THE WRIT
PETITION.
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:19970-DB
WA No. 209 of 2023
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, M.G.S.KAMAL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This writ appeal is filed against the order dated
06.12.2022 passed by this Court in W.P.No.25020/2015
(S-RES) by which the said writ petition filed by the
appellant/petitioner seeking quash of order dated
22.04.2015 passed in R.P.No.12/2010 and for a further
direction to the respondent No.5 to appoint the
appellant/petitioner to the post of Physical Education
Teacher to backlog vacancy with all monetary benefits is
rejected.
2. It is the case of the appellant/petitioner that
respondent No.5 had invited applications through public
notice dated 01.03.1990 to fill up various posts including
one post of Physical Education Teacher, which is reserved
for Schedule Caste Community. That the petitioner belong
to Schedule Caste Community and that without following
the roster and reservation in the matter of appointment
NC: 2023:KHC:19970-DB
WA No. 209 of 2023
the respondent No.5 appointed the respondent No.6 as
Physical Education Teacher on 18.04.1992. Being
aggrieved by the same, the appellant/petitioner had filed a
petition challenging the appointment of respondent No.6
before CRE Cell which after holding enquiry found that
there was no violation and accordingly rejected the
application. The appellant/ petitioner approached this
Court in W.P.No.43413/2002 which was dismissed. The
appellant/petitioner filed review petition in
R.P.No.754/2005 which was rejected reserving liberty to
the appellant/petitioner to file an appeal as provided under
Education Act. Accordingly, appellant/petitioner filed a
revision petition in R.P.No.2/2008 which was also rejected
by the authority by order dated 08.02.2010 upholding the
appointment of respondent No.6. Aggrieved by the same,
appellant/petitioner preferred a revision petition in
R.P.No.12/ 2010 which was also rejected by order dated
31.03.2012. Thereafter, appellant/petitioner filed yet
another W.P.No.34082/2014, in that this Court by order
dated 21.11.2014 set aside the order and remanded the
NC: 2023:KHC:19970-DB
WA No. 209 of 2023
matter for fresh consideration. After hearing the parties,
the appellate Authority by order dated 22.04.2015
rejected the said revision petition. Aggrieved by the same,
the petitioner filed the present petition.
3. After hearing the submissions of
respective counsel, learned Single Judge has noted that
public notice dated 01.03.1990 issued by respondent
No.5-institution inviting applications from eligible
candidates did not make any provision for reservation to
the post of physical education teacher and it was meant
for general merit candidates. The contention of
appellant/petitioner that one post of physical education
teacher ought to have been filled up by candidate
belonging to Schedule Caste category has also been
negated. Learned Single judge has also taken note of the
fact that initially the post of physical education teacher
was filled up by one Sri. Singraiah belonging to Schedule
Caste category and as such there is no question of backlog
to be filled to the post of physical education teacher.
NC: 2023:KHC:19970-DB
WA No. 209 of 2023
Learned Single Judge has also taken note of the fact that
the appellant/petitioner has attained the age of
superannuation as he was aged 56 years at the time of the
filing the petition and had no purpose would be served to
consider the case of the appellant/petitioner for the
appointment of post of physical education teacher.
Accordingly, dismissed the writ petition.
4. Heard Sri Somashekharaiah R.P., learned counsel for
the appellant and perused the records.
5. On a query by this Court as to if the notification
dated 01.03.1990 at Annexure-G provided for any
reservation to the lone post of physical education teacher,
learned counsel for the appellant is unable to point out any
such reservation having been made in the said notification.
When the very basic contention of the appellant that the
post of physical education teacher was reserved in the
public notice dated 01.03.1990 has not been substantiated
by placing any acceptable material on record, the
appellant cannot be heard to say as a matter of right that
NC: 2023:KHC:19970-DB
WA No. 209 of 2023
the said post ought to have been reserved to the
candidate belonging to Schedule Caste category.
6. The case of the appellant/petitioner having been
heard on several occasions by the concerned authorities
including this court and appellant/petitioner being
unsuccessful throughout for he not being able to establish
his rights to be appointed under reserved category and
learned Single Judge having taken note of these aspects of
the matter while rejecting the writ petition, we do not find
any ground warranting interference. Accordingly, writ
appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
RU
