Karnataka High Court
Bangalore University vs Sri Dyavappa on 20 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:47229-DB
WA No. 1028 of 2022
C/W CCC No. 996 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1028 OF 2022 (S-RES)
C/W
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 996 OF 2022
IN W.A.No.1028 OF 2022 :
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE UNIVERSITY,
JNANABHARATHI CAMPUS,
BANGALORE-560 056.
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.
2. BANGALORE UNIVERSITY,
REP. BY ITS VICE-CHANCELLOR,
JNANABHARATHI CAMPUS,
BANGALORE-560 056.
...APPELLANTS
Digitally signed by KORLAHALLI
BHARATHIDEVIKRISHNACHARYA
Location: HIGH COURT OF
(BY SRI. B. PRAMOD, ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. SRI. DYAVAPPA,
S/O. MARIVENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/AT FLAT NO.4A, SITE NO.8,
DAEWOO PALACE, 3RD CROSS,
AMARJYOTHI LAYOUT,
SANJAY NAGAR,
BEHIND VAIBHA THEATRE,
BANGALORE-560 094.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:47229-DB
WA No. 1028 of 2022
C/W CCC No. 996 of 2022
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONAL &
ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS (DPAR),
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
5. THE UNIVERSITY VISVESVARAYA
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
(AN AUTONOMUS UNIVERSITY)
K.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 001.
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR /DIRECTOR
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R.S. RAVI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI.VENKATESH C.,ADVOCATE FOR R1,
SRI. VIKAS RAJIPURA, AGA FOR R2 TO R4,
SRI. RAGHAVENDRA G GAYATRI, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20/07/2022 PASSED IN WP NO.6426/2021
BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT AND
DISMISS THE SAID WRIT PETITION BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL.
IN CCC NO.996 OF 2022 :
BETWEEN:
SRI. DYAVAPPA,
S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/AT FLAT NO.4A, SITE NO.8,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:47229-DB
WA No. 1028 of 2022
C/W CCC No. 996 of 2022
DAEVOO PALACE,
3RD CROSS,
AMARAJYOTHI LAYOUT,
SANJAY NAGAR,
BEHIND VAIBHAV THEATRE,
BENGALURU - 560 094.
...COMPLAINANT
(BY SRI. R.S.RAVI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. VENKATESH C.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. MAHESH BABU,
REGISTRAR,
BANGALORE UNIVERSITY,
JNANA BHARATHI CAMPUS,
BENGALURU - 560 056.
...ACCUSED
(BY SRI. B PRAMOD.,ADVOCATE)
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND R/W SECTION 11 AND 12 OF
THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, BY THE COMPLAINANT,
WHEREIN HE PRAYS THAT THE HON'BLE COURT BE PLEASED TO
ISSUE NOTICE TO INITIATE THE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS
AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR WILLFUL AND DELIBERATE
DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE
COURT IN WP NO.6426/2021 DATED 20.7.2022 (ANNEXURE-A)
AND PUNISH HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
THE APPEAL AND CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION ARE COMING ON
FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:47229-DB
WA No. 1028 of 2022
C/W CCC No. 996 of 2022
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)
Heard Sri B.Pramod, learned counsel for the
appellants, Sri R.S.Ravi, learned Senior Counsel as
instructed by Advocate Sri. Venkatesh C, appearing for
respondent No.1, learned Addl.Government Advocate
appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4, as well as learned
counsel appearing for respondent No.5-University, which is
said to be the successor of the appellant so far as the post
in question is concerned.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
appellants-University that University had issued
Notification dated 21.03.2018 vide Annexure-`C', for filling
up the post of Assistant Professor, Department of
Architecture. Two posts were notified, one was reserved
for Scheduled Tribe (Open) and the other for Scheduled
Tribe (Women). The 1st respondent applied for the post of
NC: 2024:KHC:47229-DB
Assistant Professor in the Department of Architecture
under Scheduled Tribe (open) category. The selection was
conducted and on 27.12.2019, one Mr.Ranganath M.N.,
was appointed under Scheduled Tribe (open) backlog
reservation vacancy. It is submitted that no selection was
made to the post of Assistant Professor under Scheduled
Tribe (Women) category as no eligible candidates had
applied for the post. It is submitted that selection came to
an end in December 2019 itself. Long thereafter, on
09.01.2021, a representation was submitted by the 1st
respondent seeking to issue appointment order to him
relying on the Government Order dated 22.11.2002 since
there was no candidate available under the Scheduled
Tribe (Women) category, which was not considered by the
appellant.
3. The 1st respondent approached this Court filing
Writ Petition No.6426/2021 (S-RES). The learned Single
Judge by the order dated 20.07.2022, confirmed that the
claim raised by the writ petitioner is liable to be allowed
NC: 2024:KHC:47229-DB
and the University was directed to take note of the
Government Order dated 22.11.2002 vide Annexure-`H'
and to offer appointment to the 1st respondent within
three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the
appellants submits that the learned Single Judge omitted
to take note of the provisions of Karnataka State Civil
Services (Unfilled Vacancies Reserved for the Persons
belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes) (Special Recruitment) Rules, 2001, (for short,
`2001 Rules') as well as the provisions of the Government
Order bearing No.DPAR 19 SBC 89, dated 12th July 1989.
It is submitted that the reliance placed by the learned
Single Judge on the provisions of Karnataka Civil Services
(General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 and specifically, Rule 9
(1B) thereof, was totally misplaced since the recruitment
in question was admittedly a special recruitment made in
respect of backlog vacancies.
NC: 2024:KHC:47229-DB
5. It is further submitted that the recruitment
notice itself specifically refers to 2001 Rules referred to
above, which were notified on 21.11.2001 and
01.06.2002. It is submitted that the Government Order
No.DPAR 19 SBC 89, is also specifically noted in the
notification and would be applicable to the selection in
question.
6. It is further contended that Rule 8 of 2001
Rules specifically provides that the Karnataka Civil
Services Rules, the Karnataka Civil Services (Probation)
Rules, 1977, and such other rules for the time being in
force regulating the conditions of service made or deemed
to have been made under the Karnataka State Civil
Services Act, 1978 (Karnataka Act 14 of 1990), in so far
as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of these
Rules, shall be applicable to the persons appointed under
these Rules.
7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
appellants that the said provision would make it clear that,
NC: 2024:KHC:47229-DB
in case there is a provision in the 2001 Rules or in the
Government Orders applicable to backlog vacancies, the
provisions of General Rules would have no application to
such matters.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st
respondent, on the other hand, contends that the
reservation of 33% of the post for women is on the basis
of Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules
1977 and specifically in terms of Rule 9 (1B) thereof. It is
submitted that the horizontal reservation as regards
women candidate is not a part of the common reservation
or the provisions contained in 2001 Rules with regard to
carrying forward of the backlog vacancies. It is submitted
that since the horizontal reservation for women candidates
is a creature of 1977 General Recruitment Rules, the
further provision as contained in the proviso to said Rule
provides that if adequate number of eligible women
candidates are not available, the unfilled vacancies shall
be filled up by men candidates belonging to the same
NC: 2024:KHC:47229-DB
category would apply in respect of the recruitment in
question. It is therefore contended that the provisions in
the Government Order dated 12.07.1989 states that
backlog vacancies which remained unutilised during any
recruitment shall be carried forward for the next
recruitment also and should be renotified for three years
or for three direct recruitments would not apply in the
instant case since there is no de-notification of the
vacancies as such and all that has been done by the
learned Single Judge is to direct the filling up of the
vacancy by a male candidate who was available in terms
of the proviso to Rule 9 (1B) of Karnataka Civil Services
(General Recruitment) Rules,1977.
9. The learned Addl.Government Advocate
appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4 also supports the
contentions raised by the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for 1st respondent.
10. Having considered the contentions advanced,
we notice that the vacancy of Assistant Professor
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:47229-DB
(Architecture) to the Scheduled Tribe (open) category was
filled up on 27.12.2019. The learned Single Judge has
accepted the contentions raised by the writ petitioner/
1st respondent that the 1st respondent became aware of
the fact that there were no women candidates who had
applied for the post of Assistant Professor (Architecture)
under the category of Schedule Tribe (Women) only on
receipt of Annexure-`G' communication on 08.01.2021.
The representation was immediately submitted on
09.01.2021. The W.P was filed on 06.01.2021.
11. In the above factual situation, we are unable to
accept the contentions raised by the appellants that filing
of the writ petition was unduly belated. Further the
learned Single Judge has specifically considered the
contention that horizontal reservation made for women is
made in terms of sub-rule (1B) of Rule 9 of Karnataka Civil
Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977. That being
the position, we are in agreement with the learned Single
Judge that the proviso to the said Rule would also be
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:47229-DB
applicable to the said recruitment. The fact that the
recruitment in question was a backlog vacancy would
make no difference to the situation since there is no
de-reservation involved in the instant case.
12. In the above view of the matter, we are of the
opinion that the contentions raised by the learned counsel
for the appellants that the directions issued by the learned
Single Judge is completely unwarranted, cannot be
accepted. We find no grounds to interfere in this intra
Court appeal filed against the order passed by the learned
Single Judge.
Therefore, the appeal fails and the same is
accordingly dismissed.
The 5th respondent, who is the successor in interest
of the appellant-University shall take appropriate steps to
give effect to the directions of the learned Single Judge
within a period of two months from the date of receipt of
copy of this order.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:47229-DB
In the light of the orders passed in this writ appeal,
the Civil Contempt Petition is closed.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(UMESH M ADIGA)
JUDGE
BK
