Writ petition filed seeking direction to educate department to consider a selection proposal for a lecturer post. Court allowed petition, directing respondent to process the proposal within two months.
Petitioner directed to consider proposal No. RA.U.HU.TU.ANU/2023-24 and pass appropriate orders within two months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 23730 OF 2024 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. GURU SIDDARAMESHWARA EDUCATION SOCIETY REGD. MALLAPPANAHALLI, HOSADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577554 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, SRI. MOHAN KUMAR J., S/O JAGADEESHA E, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SUYOG HERELE E., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRINCE ISAC, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE PROPOSAL OF APPOINTMENT IN NO. PAPUSHIE/UNIKACHI/GG0027/ RA.U.HU.TU.ANU/2023-24 DATED 14.06.2023 MADE BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY (PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E)
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of Mandamus to direct the respondent No.2 to consider the proposal of respondent No.4 bearing No.¥À¥ÀƲE/G¤PÀa/ff0027/gÁ.G.ºÀÄ.vÀÄ.C£ÀÄ/111/2023-24 dated
14.06.2023.
contends that post of lecturer in Political Science fell vacant on 30.06.2011 following the retirement of a lecturer. The petitioner submitted a representation to respondent No.3 seeking permission to fill up the vacant post. The respondent No.2 vide notification dated 25.04.2016 permitted the petitioner to fill up the vacant post from amongst any person belonging to Scheduled Caste category. The said notification was challenged before this Court in W.P.No.37160/2016. This Court in terms of the order dated 07.02.2020 disposed off the writ petition and quashed the notification dated 25.04.2016 and directed the respondent No.2 to re-consider the case and complete the process within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. Following this, the respondent No.2 issued a fresh notification dated 05.02.2022 permitting the petitioner to fill up the vacant post of lecturer in Political Science without imposing any restriction regarding reservation and by following the guidelines. In view of the above, the petitioner issued a paper publication on 03.03.2022 and conducted interview of the candidates on 07.04.2022 and thereafter, the name of the selected candidate was recommended for appointment. The respondent No.2 after
perusing the recommendation, rejected the selection list stating that there was violation of Rule 17(3) of the Karnataka PreUniversity Education (Academic, Registration, Administration and Grant-in-aid etc.,) Rules, 2006 and directed the petitioner to redo the entire process. Later, the petitioner issued another paper publication dated 02.02.2023 and interview was held and the name of the selected candidate was sent to the respondent No.4 for approval. The respondent No.4 considering the request made by the petitioner, forwarded the selection list to the respondent No.2 for necessary approval. It is submitted that despite recommendation made by the respondent No.4, respondent No.2 has not considered grant of approval to the selection list.
seeking for the direction to the respondent No.2 to consider the proposal of respondent No.4 and pass appropriate orders.
NC: 2024:KHC:37788 WP No. 23730 of 2024
accordance with law and pass appropriate orders regarding approval of the selection so made. The delay in not granting approval is not justified.
14.06.2023 and pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order.
granted ten days time to file a memo of appearance.
Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE
PMR
List No.: 3 Sl No.: 1
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondent authority is bound to consider the selection proposal referred to it for approval after the appointment process was completed by the petitioner institution.
Whether the statutory delay in granting approval to the selection list is justified.
Whether to direct the respondent to dispose of the matter on the merits within a specified time frame.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
NC: 2024:KHC:37788
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THE DIRECTOR PRE-UNIVERSITY EDUCATION
THE JOINT DIRECTOR PRE-UNIVERSITY EDUCATION
THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR PRE-UNIVERSITY EDUCATION
Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA
R. NATARAJ
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
