Dismissed

The Special Officer v. Dharmaraj S/O Anandappa Doddamani

Karnataka HC7 Nov 2023WA/100321/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Appeals challenging the High Court Single Judge's order exempting candidates from Question No.83 in Secondary School Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) were filed. The Court disposed of the appeals, noting that some respondents qualified in subsequent exams, while others failed to meet the 60% cut-off even after the exemption. No further adjudication was required.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeals were disposed of; no further adjudication was required as certificates were issued in subsequent years or marks were below cut-off. Pending applications were disposed of.

The Special Officer Vs Dharmaraj S/O Anandappa… — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12997-DB WA No. 100321 of 2022 C/W WA No. 100322 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023 PRESENT

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV

¶4

AND

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL

¶6

WRIT APPEAL NO. 100321 OF 2022 (EDN-EX) C/W WRIT APPEAL NO. 100322 OF 2022 (EDN-EX)

¶7

IN WA NO.100321 OF 2022

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

THE SPECIAL OFFICER, CENTRALIZED EXAMINATION CELL, BENGALURU, DIST. BENGALURU 560001, RPTD. BY PREMA H.M.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. K.S. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

VINAYAKA

B V

Digitally signed by VINAYAKA B V Date: 2023.11.15 10:41:15 +0530

¶16

DHARMARAJ S/O. ANANDAPPA DODDAMANI, AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. PART TIME TEACHEWR, R/O. WARD NO.15, GANDHI NAGAR, KUSHTAGI, TQ. KUSHTAGI, DIST. KOPPAL 583228.

¶17

POORNIMA D/O. NAGAPPA, AGE. 29 YEARS, OCC. PART TIME TEACHER, R/O. AT POST. KAVALOOR, TQ. AND DIST. KOPPAL 583228.

¶18

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA RPTD. BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY, DEPRT. OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, BENGALURU, DIST. BENGALURU 560001.

¶19

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, (ADMINISTRATION), SELECTION AND APPOINTMENT AUTHORITY, DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, BENGALURU, DIST. BENGALURU 560001.

¶20

2 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12997-DB WA No. 100321 of 2022 C/W WA No. 100322 of 2022

¶21

THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, BENGALURU, DIST. BENGALURU 560001.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SMT. GIRIJA HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R3 TO R5 NOTICE TO R1 & R2 SERVED)

¶24

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING THIS HON’BLE COURT TO, SET-ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 20.04.2022 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.108569/2019 (EDN-EX).

¶25

IN WA NO.100322 OF 2022

¶26

BETWEEN:

¶27

THE SPECIAL OFFICER, CENTRALIZED EXAMINATION CELL, BENGALURU, DIST. BENGALURU 560001, RPTD BY PREMA H.M.

¶28

…APPELLANT

¶29

(BY SRI. K.S. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶30

AND:

¶31

NAGARAJ S/O. MARUTI RAO BHOSLE, AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. PART TIME TEACHER, R/O. WARD NO. 28, CHAPPARADALLI AREA, NEAR JALANJANEYA TEMPLE, HOSAPETE, TQ. HOSAPETE, DIST. BELLARY 583201.

¶32

SRI. JANDIPEER S/O. BUDANSAB BAGLI, AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. PART TIME TEACHER, R/O. AT GABBUR, POST. KUTAGANAHALLI, TQ. AND DIST. KOPPAL 583228.

¶33

BOGAMMA D/O. BHEEMARAYA HALAGERI, AGE. 29 YEARS, OCC. PART TIME TEACHER, R/O. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, DONI MALAI, SANDUR, TQ. SANDUR, DIST. BELLARY 583119.

¶34

SHRIKANT SHIVASHARAN MALI, AGE. 33 YEARS, OCC. PART TIME TEACHER, R/O. C/O. SAGAR SOMANNA MALI, B.T. PATIL NAGAR, KOPPAL,

¶35

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12997-DB WA No. 100321 of 2022 C/W WA No. 100322 of 2022

¶36

TQ. AND DIST. KOPPAL 583231.

¶37

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, RPTD. BY IS PRL. SECRETARY, DEPRT. OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, BENGALURU, DIST. BENGALURU 560001.

¶38

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION), SELECTION AND APPOINTMENT AUTHORITY, DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, BENGALURU, DIST. BENGALURU 560001.

¶39

THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION BENGALURU, DIST. BENGALURU 560001.

¶40

…RESPONDENTS

¶41

(BY SMT. GIRIJA HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R5, R6, R7, NOTICE TO R1, R2 SERVED)

¶42

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING THIS HON BLE COURT TO, SET-ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 20.04.2022 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.109293/2019 (EDN-EX).

¶43

THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶44

JUDGMENT

¶45

These writ appeals are filed against the order dated

¶46

20.04.2022 passed in WP No.109293/2019 c/w WP

¶47

No.108569/2019, whereby the learned Single Judge has held that question No.83 to Paper II to the examination held on 3.2.2019 is eschewed, respondents therein were directed to mark the applicants without reference to question No.83. It was further directed that in the event of the petitioners in

¶48

¶49

NC: 2023:KHC-D:12997-DB WA No. 100321 of 2022 C/W WA No. 100322 of 2022

¶50

the writ proceedings are declared to be qualified on account of deletion of question No.83, they would also be permitted to apply for fresh recruitment which would be considered by the respondents in accordance with law.

¶51

2. In both these writ appeals, learned counsel for

¶52

the appellant has filed a memo showing the candidates who were qualified in TET examination for the year 2021. The said memo reads as hereunder:

¶53

Sl. No.	Writ Appeal Nos.	Candidate Name	Qualified year
1.	WA 100321/22	Dharmraj Anandappa Doddammani (Respondent No.1)	2021
2.	WA 100322/22	Nagaraj Maruti Rao Bhosle (Respondent No.1)	2021
3.	WA 100322/22	Bogamma Bheemaraya Halageri (Respondent No.3)	2021

¶54

Another memo is filed by the appellant showing

¶55

the marks of the candidates after eschewing question No.83,

¶56

which reads as hereunder:

¶57

Sl. No.	Writ Appeal	Candidate Name	Marks	obtained	Qualifyin	g marks
	Nos.		In year 2019	After judgment	Minimum percentage required for category	Percentage obtained
1.	100321/22	Poornima Nagappa (Respondent No.1)	88/149	88/148	60% for Cat-IIIA	59.46%
2.	100322/22	Jandipeer Budansab (Respondent No.1)	87/149	87/148	60% for Cat-IIB	58.78%
3.	100322/22	Bogamma Bheemaraya Halageri (Respondent No.3)	87/149	87/148	60% for Cat-IIA	58.78%

¶58

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12997-DB WA No. 100321 of 2022 C/W WA No. 100322 of 2022

¶59

Accordingly, it is submitted that these writ

¶60

appeals may be disposed of.

¶61

There is no representation on behalf of the said respondents before this Court.

¶62

On perusal of the aforesaid memos, it is clear that as regards respondent No.1 in WA No.100321/2022, respondent No.1 and 3 in WA No.100322/2022, the said respondents have qualified in TET examination for the year 2021. In light of the same, question of adjudication insofar as such of the respondents does not arise as they have taken part and qualified in the TET examination in the subsequent years.

¶63

Insofar as respondent No.2 in WA No.100321/2022, respondents No.2 and 4 in WA No.100322/2022, it is submitted that even after eschewing the question No.83, the marks obtained by the above said respondents would be below cut-off marks of 60% in terms

¶64

of stipulation issued by the Government relating to TET examination for the year 2018, which provides minimum

¶65

6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12997-DB WA No. 100321 of 2022 C/W WA No. 100322 of 2022

¶66

qualification of 60% for General Merit candidates and 55% for the Reserved candidates. In terms of said brochure, the qualifying marks of 60% would be applicable to those candidates belonging to Category-IIIA, IIB and IIA and the above said candidates do not fall within the category of SCST and Category-1 for whom there is a lower qualifying mark. Accordingly, as they do not fall within the zone of consideration, there is no question of adjudication of order passed in the writ petition. Accordingly, both writ appeals are disposed off.

¶67

Pending applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and accordingly, they are disposed off.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

JTR

LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 2

The Special Officer v. Dharmaraj S/O Anandappa Doddamani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Special Officer v. Dharmaraj S/O Anandappa Doddamani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mallavva W/O Mylareppa Vs Veerupakshappa S/O Titappa

Mallavva W/O Mylareppa Vs Veerupakshappa S/O Titappa

Smt B Lakshmi Devi W/O B.Pedda Ranganna Vs R Govinda Rao S/O R.Narashimha Rao

Surekha W/O Ganesh Medar, Vs Ganesh S/O Kalakappa Medar

Shri. Hajimastan S/O Jinnusab Nadaf Vs Smt Farida Begum W/O Hajimastan Nadaf

The Special Officer Vs Nagaraj S/O Maruti Rao Bhosle