Disposed

Ravi S/O Basappa Ganiger v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Dec 2019WP/112242/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that a higher authority had already decided the more merited candidate for an Assistant Teacher post, rendering the current writ petition less meritorious for interference. The court directed the appointing authority to complete proceedings and appoint the more merited candidate.

What did the court decide?

Directed the appointing authority to forward the more merited candidate and issue appointment order within three months; petitioner's name to be considered if more merited.

Ravi S/O Basappa Ganiger Vs the State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.BAJANTHRI

¶6

WP NO.112242 OF 2014 (S-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

RAVI S/O BASAPPA GANIGER, AGE: 29 YEARS,OCC: NIL, R/O: CHIKKANARGUND VILLAGE, TQ: NARAGUND, DIST: GADAG

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. ABHISHEK L KALLED, ADV FOR SRI. SHRIHARSH A NEELOPANT, ADV.)

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, RPTD.BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, M S BUILDING, BANGALORE

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS OFFICE, RODDA ROAD, DHARWAD

¶14

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, BELGAUM DISTRICT, BELGAUM

¶15

¶16

THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER SAUNDATTI TALUK, SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM

¶17

MARADI BASAVESHWAR VIDYA PRASAR MANDAL, YARAGATTI, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN/SECRETARY,

¶18

THE HEAD MASTER, SHRI BASAVESHWAR HIGH SCHOOL, YARAGATTI, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM

¶19

PANDURANG V SUNAADHOLI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: NOT KNOWN, R/O. GORAGUDDI, POST: KADABI, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM

¶20

... RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT. VEEN HEGDE, AGA FOR R1-R4; SRI. AKSHAT R.D., ADV. FOR SRI. V.M.SHEELVANT, ADV FOR R5 AND R6; SRI. MANJUNATH KARIGANNAVAR, ADV. FOR R7)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED RESOLUTION DATED 24.11.2013 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.5 IN SO FAR AS APPOINTING THE RESPONDENT NO.7 AS AN ASSISTANT TEACHER IN KANNADA SUBJECT AS PER ANNEXURE-K AND TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 12.02.2014 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 AS PER ANNEXURE-M AND ETC.,

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The petitioner has sought for following reliefs:

¶27

a) Issue a writ or direction or order in the nature of writ of certiorari to quash the impugned resolution dated 24.11.2013 passed by the respondent No.5 insofar as appointing the respondent No.7 as an assistant teacher in Kannada subject as per Annexure-K.

¶28

b) Issue a writ or direction or order in the nature of writ of certiorari to quash the impugned endorsement bearing No.E1/Khaprousha/ne.anu/AKSEPANE/1314/1349 DATED 12.02.2014 issued by the respondent No.4 as per annexure-M.

¶29

c) Issue a writ or direction or order in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner as an assistant teacher in Kannada subject in respondent No.6 school run by the respondent No.5 institution.

¶30

¶31

d) grant any other relief as deems fit by this Hon’ble Court in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.

¶32

The matter pertains to selection and

¶33

appointment of Assistant Teacher in Kannada subject.

¶34

The State Government has filed statement of objections along with order passed by the Commissioner of Education, Public Instruction, Dharwad dated 25.09.2014 .

¶35

Perusal of Annexure-R1 dated 25.09.2014, the Commissioner of Education, Public Instruction, Dharwad has taken a decision that the 7^th respondent is not more merited candidate so as to select him against one of the Assistant Teacher post in the Kannada subject. Whereas in the present petition, the petitioner has questioned the

¶36

7^th respondent’s selection and appointment.

¶37

¶38

In view of the order passed by the

¶39

Commissioner of Education, Public Instruction, Dharwad dated 25.09.2014, the present petition does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the concerned respondent/ appointing authority is hereby directed to forward the more merited candidate against one of the Assistant Teacher post in the Kannada subject and to issue appointment order, in accordance with law, if it is not already carried out, complete the proceedings within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. During the process, name of the petitioner be considered if he is otherwise more merited and eligible to be appointed as Assistant Teacher in the Kannada subject.

¶40

With the above observation, the petition stands disposed off.

¶41

JUDGE

¶42

Vb/-

Ravi S/O Basappa Ganiger v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi S/O Basappa Ganiger v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M S Poojari Vs the Registrar General

Sri. Tanoji S/O Ganapathi Kondekar Vs the Management of Nwkrtc

The State Government Vs the Director

Sri. Obalaraju Vs State of Karnataka by

Smt Pooja C Sarangamath Vs the Registrar

M/S.Vahini Development Society Vs State of Karnataka