Allowed

B M S College for Women v. the Karnataka State Commission for

Karnataka HC11 Jun 2024WP/17995/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A college challenged the State Commission's taking cognizance of a lecturer's complaint for regularization of his services. Following a co-ordinate bench ruling that the Commission lacks adjudicatory powers, the High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the complaint.

What did the court decide?

Complaint No.117/2017 before the Karnataka State Commission for SCs/STs quashed and consequently dismissed.

B M S College for Women Vs the Karnataka State… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:21460 WP No. 17995 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 17995 OF 2017 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

B.M.S. COLLEGE FOR WOMEN, BUGLE ROCK ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU – 560 004. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON MRS.RAGINI NARAYAN.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. BADRI VISHAL., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE KARNATAKA STATE COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBES, NO.14/3, 2^ND FLOOR, CFC BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.

¶13

RAMAKRISHNAPPA H.K., S/O KEMPA RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, BUGLE ROCK ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU – 560 004.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI.C.JAGADISH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 SERVED)

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:21460 WP No. 17995 of 2017

¶18

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE R-1 I.E., THE KARNATAKA STATE COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBES IN COMPLAINT NO.117/2017 AT ANNEXURE – H AND ETC.,.

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Respondent No.2 was appointed as a Kannada Lecturer on in the Department of Kannada for the Academic Year-2011-12 on temporary basis. Respondent No.2 from the year 2011 till 2017 was working in the petitioner's college with regular termination of service on the completion of every academic year, and was again appointed for next academic year. The Screening Committee meeting was held by the Management to extend 6^th pay scale plus other allowances admissible as per rules to the lecturers who have completed four years of service on consolidation pay in petitioner's college. The petitioner issued an Office order dated 27.12.2016 intimating sanction of State pay scale to respondent No.2 was pending due to the lack of work load from next academic year i.e., 2017-18.

¶22

Given the circumstances, respondent No.2 approached respondent No.1 by filing a complaint No.117/2017 for regularization of services. The commission having taken cognizance of the complaint filed by respondent, this petition is filed.

¶23

¶24

NC: 2024:KHC:21460 WP No. 17995 of 2017

¶25

The primary contention of the petitioner is that the Commission in exercise of the power under Sections 8 and 10 of the Karnataka State Commission Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe Act, 2002 cannot adjudicate as to whether respondent No.2 is entitled for the regularization of his services and only recommend the Government, and therefore, the impugned proceedings initiated by respondent No.1 lacks authority.

¶26

Respondent No.2 though served with notice has not chosen to appear in person or through his counsel.

¶27

The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.63405/2016 disposed of on 23.11.2020 has ruled that - in terms of the powers and functions of the Commission under Article 338 of the Constitution and its in the afore-extracted judgments of the Apex Court read with powers and function of the State Commission under the Act, would make it unmistakably clear that the impugned order which decides the dispute between the petitioner and the fifth respondent therein and gives a direction to the State Government to promote the respondent therein with retrospective effect, are all powers which are ostensibly adjudicatory in nature, which power the Commission, in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court does have.

¶28

In view of the specific provisions contained in the Act, 2002 and the ratio enunciated by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court relying on he decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the impugned proceedings initiated on the complaint filed by

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:21460 WP No. 17995 of 2017

¶30

respondent No.2 lacks authority. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶31

ORDER

¶32

i. Writ petition is allowed.

¶33

ii. The complaint on the file of respondent No.1 in complaint No.117/2017 filed by respondent No.2 stands quashed. Consequently, the complaint filed by respondent No.2 stands dismissed.

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29

B M S College for Women v. the Karnataka State Commission for

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B M S College for Women v. the Karnataka State Commission for

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri P B Chennabasappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri K Harishchandra Rao S/O Sri P Narayan Rao Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri Venkataramana Asranna Vs the Deputy Commissioner for Hindu

Mr Narendra Kumar Mohta Vs Export -Import Bank of India

D. M. Suresh Babu Vs the Chief Secretary

Smt. Lakshmi Devi Vs Indian Bank