Disposed

Govindaraju K R v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Feb 2024WP/29282/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court set aside the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal's order denying the preparation of an additional select list for P.U. College Lecturers, holding that Rule 7 of the 2011 Rules clearly mandates such a list. The Court dispensed with costs, directed compliance with Rule 7 for future recruitments, and allowed the petitioners to claim age relaxation for the period of litigation.

What did the court decide?

Petitions disposed of with observations; costs made easy; direction issued to prepare additional select lists under Rule 7; age relaxation granted for litigation period.

Govindaraju K R Vs the State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:6301-DB WP No. 29282 of 2017 C/W WP No. 29275 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA WRIT PETITION NO.29282 OF 2017 (S-KAT) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.29275 OF 2017 (S-KAT)

¶9

IN W.P.NO.29282 OF 2017

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

GOVINDARAJU K R S/O RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC:HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER GOVT. HIGH SCHOOL, MADHUGIRI.

¶12

Digitally signed by SANDHYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

CHANDRASHEKARAMURTHY H P S/O PUTTACHAR, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC:HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER, GOVT.HIGH SCHOOL, MADHUGIRI.

¶14

HALLALLI BASAVARAJ S/O HALALLI SHIVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC:JUNIOR ASSISTANT, PRINCIPAL SECRETARIAT(DPAR) VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001.

¶15

SMT. SHEELA K.P. D/O SRI PUTTAPPA S.R. AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS OCC. S.D.A, A.R.D.P.R. DEPARTMENT TALUK PANCHAYAT,

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:6301-DB WP No. 29282 of 2017 C/W WP No. 29275 of 2017

¶17

R/O KANTAPURA, JANAKALA POST, CHITRADURGA HOSADURGA TALUK 577 527

¶18

…PETITIONERS

¶19

(BY SRI. JAGADEESH GOUD PATIL., ADVOCATE)

¶20

AND:

¶21

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, (PRIMARY & SECONDARY) M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

¶22

THE COMMISSIONER FOR P.U. EDUCATION & PRESIDENT OF SPECIAL RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE, BENGALURU-560001.

¶23

THE DIRECTOR DEPT. OF P.U.EDUCATION, MALLESHWARAM, 18TH CROSS, BENGALURU-560003.

¶24

THE SPECIAL OFFICER C.A.C DEPT., OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, K.G.ROAD, MYSORE BANK CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560009.

¶25

THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR KARNATAKA EXAMINATION BOARD & RECRUITMENT AUTHORITY, 18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560003.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI K. ANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R4; SRI RAGHAVENDRA P.H., ADVOCATE FOR SRI N.K. RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:6301-DB WP No. 29282 of 2017 C/W WP No. 29275 of 2017

¶29

¶30

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD.10.3.2017, PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE IN A.NO.11638 TO 641/2016 VIDE ANNEX-A AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITIONS AS PRAYED FOR IN A.NO.11638 TO 641/2016.DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PREPARE ADDITIONAL SELECT LIST OF LECTURERS IN P.U.COLLEGE AS REQUIRED UNDER RULE 7(3)(4) OF THE KARNATAKA GENERAL SERVICE (PRE-UNIVERSITY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT) (RECRUITMENT TO THE CADRE OF LECTURERS OF GOVERNMENT PRE UNIVERSITY COLLEGES) (SPECIAL) RULES 2011 AND TO ISSUE APPOINTMENT ORDER TO THE PETITIONERS WHO ARE ELIGIBLE TO THE SAID POST.DIRECT THE CHIEF SECRETARY OF THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA TO TAKE ACTION AGAINST EACH OF THE MEMBERS IN THE COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED UNDER THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DTD.29.10.2011 VIDE ANNEX-A1, FOR DIRELICTIONS OF SERVICE AND RECOVER THE SALARY AND SPECIAL FACILITITES PROVIDED THEM TOGETHER INTEREST;

¶31

IN W.P.NO.29275 OF 2017

¶32

BETWEEN

¶33

1 . SMT LATHA W/O NARENDRA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC:NIL, R/O HOUSE NO.1862/18, 1ST STAGE, 1ST MAIN, SHIVAKUMARASWAMY NAGAR, HRB LAYOUT, DAVANAGERE-577 00

¶34

2 . SIDDARAMANNA H.R. S/O RAMESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCC:NIL R/O HOSAHATTY, KABBALA POST, HODADURGA TALUK. CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

¶35

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:6301-DB WP No. 29282 of 2017 C/W WP No. 29275 of 2017

¶36

3 . SRIDHARAMURTHY K.N. S/O NANJUNDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O DODDAKUNTHUR (V) ARALERI POST, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT.

¶37

4 . MAHADEV B.K. S/O KARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O BALUGALI, NAGARALE POST, NANJANAGUDU TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT-571 422

¶38

5 . HARISH H N S/O NAGARAJU H.S. AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCC:NIL, R/O HAGALA HALI VILLAGE POST, KASABA HOBLI, RAMANAGAR TALUK, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT.

¶39

6 . SHASHIKANTH KONNUR S/O THIPPANNA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/O HOUSE NO.27 CHANDRANATHANAGAR, HUBLI-580 032.

¶40

7 . ASHOK M KAUCHAGAR S/O MAHADEVAPPA KAUCHAGAR, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O HALASANGI-586 207 TQ:INDI, DIST VIJAYAPUR.

¶41

...PETITIONERS

¶42

(BY SRI JAGADEESH GOUD PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶43

AND

¶44

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (PRIMARY & SECONDARY)

¶45

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:6301-DB WP No. 29282 of 2017 C/W WP No. 29275 of 2017

¶46

M.S.BUILDING,

¶47

BENGALURU-560 001.

¶48

2 . THE COMMISSIONER FOR P.U.EDUCATION & PRESIDENT FOR SPECIAL RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶49

3 . THE DIRECTOR DEPT. OF P.U.EDUCATION, MALLESHWARAM, 18TH CROSS, BENGALURU-560 003.

¶50

4 . SPECIAL OFFICER C.A.C. DEPT. OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, K.G.ROAD, MYSORE BANK CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 009.

¶51

5 . THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR KARNATAKA EXAMINATION BOARD & RECRUITMENT AUTHORITY, 18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560 003.

¶52

…RESPONDENTS

¶53

(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI K. ANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R4; SRI RAGHAVENDRA P.H., ADVOCATE FOR SRI N.K. RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶54

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTIO OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD.3.2.2017, PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE IN A.NO.5303 TO 5313/2015 VIDE ANNEX-A AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITIONS AS PRAYD FOR IN A.NO.5303 TO 5313/2015; DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PREPARE ADDITIONAL SELECT LIST OF LECTURERS IN P.U.COLLEGE AS REQUIRED UNDER RULE 7(3)(4) OF THE KARNATAKA GENERAL SERVICE (PRE-UNIVERSITY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT) (RECRUITMENT TO THE CADRE OF LECTURERS OF GOVERNMENT PRE UNIVERSITY COLLEGES) (SPECIAL) RULES 2011 AND TO ISSUE APPOINTMENT ORDER TO THE PETITIONERS WHO ARE ELIGIBLE TO THE SAID POST.

¶55

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:6301-DB WP No. 29282 of 2017 C/W WP No. 29275 of 2017

¶56

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, KRISHNA S. DIXIT, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶57

ORDER

¶58

Petitioners had filed a joint application No.5303-5313 of

¶59

2015 before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal with the following prayers:

¶60

a. Allow this application and to set-aside the proceedings 7.4.2015 issued by the 1^st respondent in No.. Nil produced at Annexure A27 and notification dated 08.05.2015 issued by the 5^th respondent in No.ED/KAE/Adalitha/ CR/54/2015-16 produced at Annexure-A28;

¶61

b. Issue an appropriate order or direction directing the respondents to prepare additional select list of lecturers in P.U. College as required under rule 7(3)(4) of the Karnataka General Service (Pre-University Education Department) (Recruitment to the Cadre of lecturers of Government Pre-University Colleges) (Special) Rules, 2011 and to issue appointment order to the applicants who are eligible to the said post;

¶62

c) Issue any other suitable order or direction as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit under the facts

¶63

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:6301-DB WP No. 29282 of 2017 C/W WP No. 29275 of 2017

¶64

and circumstances of the case including an order of cost.

¶65

The Tribunal in the operative portion of its order dated 03^rd February, 2017, a copy whereof avails at Annexure-A, has denied relief to the petitioners with the following observations:

¶66

" For the foregoing reasons, the applicants have failed to establish their case for issue of direction to the respondents as prayed for in the applications. The respondents have justified in the reply statement the action taken by them since there is no provision to publish the additional list under Rule 7(3) & (4) of KGS (P.U. Colleges) Rules, 2011 on a later date as discussed above. The applications are devoid of merit and the same are liable to be rejected. "

¶67

Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argues

¶68

that the mandate of subject Rules as enacted in Rule 7 is as clear as Gangetic waters; Rule 7(1) speaks of Main List of selected candidates which should be equal to the number of vacancies notified for the recruitment; Sub-rule (3) of Rule 7 mandates preparation of Additional List of such of the candidates who are not enlisted in the Main List which shall comprise of 10% of the number of candidates in each of the

¶69

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:6301-DB WP No. 29282 of 2017 C/W WP No. 29275 of 2017

¶70

reservation categories (horizontal and vertical), as appearing in the Main List. The said Rule makes it very clear that a candidate in the Main List, if fails to report for duty pursuant to Appointment Order, then to that vacancy, the corresponding candidate in the Additional List shall be accommodated. This having been lost sight of, the counsel for the petitioners argues, there is a gross error apparent on the face of the impugned order warranting its invalidation and consequent grant of relief to the petitioners.

¶71

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the official respondents 1, 2 & 3, learned Panel Counsel appearing for respondent No.4-Special Officer, oppose the petitions contending that the petitioners having given up their principal prayer as has been recorded in paragraph 3 of the impugned Order of Tribunal, the matter now is only of academic discussion which a Writ Court would not undertake regardless of merits of the matter. They also contend in justification of the impugned order & the reasons on which it has been structured.

¶72

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:6301-DB WP No. 29282 of 2017 C/W WP No. 29275 of 2017

¶73

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant limited indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:

¶74

(a) The text of Rule 7 of 2011 Rules is as under:

¶75

" 7. List of selected candidates.- (1) The special recruitment committee shall from among the candidates who have applied in pursuance to the advertisements under Rule 5 and on the basis of specified in rule 6 and subject to the orders in force from time to time relating to reservation to appointments or posts, prepare the merit list of candidates equal to the number of vacancies notified.

¶76

(2) If two or more candidates have secured equal percentage of marks in the qualifying examination, the order of merit in respect of such candidates shall be fixed on the basis of their age, the elder in age being placed above the younger in the order of merit. The special recruitment committee shall prepare a final selection list of candidates in respect of each category of post accordingly.

¶77

(3) The special recruitment committee shall also prepare an additional list of such of the candidates not included in the main list prepared under sub-rule (1). The number of candidates to be included in the additional list shall be as far as possible 10% of the number of candidates in each of the reservation

¶78

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:6301-DB WP No. 29282 of 2017 C/W WP No. 29275 of 2017

¶79

categories (horizontal and vertical) in the list under subrule (1). There shall at least be one candidate in the additional list belonging to each of the reservation categories (horizontal and vertical) represented in the list under sub-rule (1). If a candidate whose name is included in the list under sub-rule (1) fails to report for duty within the prescribed period, then a candidate belonging to the same reservation category as of the candidate who failed to report for duty shall be appointed from the additional list.

¶80

(4) The select list prepared under sub-rule (1), shall be published in the official Gazette and shall be valid till all the vacancies specified under these rules are filled up or until the expiry of the period of six months from the date of publication of the list prepared under sub-rule (3) whichever is earlier. "

¶81

(b) The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the scheme enacted under Rule 7 of subject Rules contemplates preparation and publication of two Lists viz. one to be prepared under sub-rule (1) of the selected candidates whose number should be equal to that of notified vacancies; secondly, sub-rule (3) mandates preparation of Additional List of candidates whose names do not figure in the Main List prepared under sub-Rule (1); the object of preparing additional list is also very clear viz. the members belonging to

¶82

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:6301-DB WP No. 29282 of 2017 C/W WP No. 29275 of 2017

¶83

the reserved categories should be accommodated to the vacancies that are not filled up because the selected candidates in the Main List have not come forward to take appointment. To that extent the oppressed/depressed classes would remain un-represented in the State Administration, which offends the constitutional requirement that mandates due representation of oppressed/depressed classes in the public employment. That being the position, we are stunned, to say the least, that the Tribunal, at paragraph 11 of the impugned order, in so many words wrongly states that there is no provision for the publication of Additional List in terms of sub-rules (3) & (4) of Rule 7. We repeat, we are stunned. Thus, this error apparent on the face of the impugned order needs to be set at naught & so is that would suffice.

¶84

The above being said, there is some difficulty, which the petitioners would face, since they have given up prayer (a) which is reproduced above; eventually the selection & appointment of the candidates concerned vide proceedings dated 07^th April, 2015 and the Notification dated 08^th May, 2015 respectively at Annexures A27 and A28, would remain unaltered. If that be so, this Court fails to understand as to

¶85

12 - NC: 2024:KHC:6301-DB WP No. 29282 of 2017 C/W WP No. 29275 of 2017

¶86

how a substantive relief can be now granted to the petitioners but for their own fault. That being said, a writ court cannot turn Nelsons eye to a deserving litigant. That is not the purpose of constitutional adjudication. Whatever little needs to be granted has to be, if needed by way of moulding the relief as sought for.

¶87

During the pendency of this litigation from the level of Tribunal, more than seven years have lapsed. It is said, " time and tide wait for none" . The petitioners have arguably, surpassed the qualifying age limit which may come in their way for staking claim for public recruitment in future. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, more particularly, the principle that the pendency of the litigation cannot cause prejudice to the litigants, we are of a considered view that whenever they apply for selection & appointment in any State employment, the period of seven years spent in this legal battle, be discounted, while computing their age qua the maximum age limit prescribed in the recruitment notification. This apart, in all recruitment processes undertaken pursuant to 2011 Rules, it is imperative that a Main List of selected candidates have to be prepared and published in terms of sub-

¶88

13 -

¶89

NC: 2024:KHC:6301-DB WP No. 29282 of 2017 C/W WP No. 29275 of 2017

¶90

Rules (1) & (4) of Rule 7 and further Additional List too has to be prepared & published in terms of sub-Rules (3) and (4) of Rule 7 2011 Rules.

¶91

With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed

¶92

off, costs having been made easy.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

LNN

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44

Govindaraju K R v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govindaraju K R 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

Sri Razin K I M Vs the Secretary

Sri.K.C.Ashwath Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr S C Kodandaramaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri B Satish Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

The Registrar Vs the State of Karnataka

B R Swamy Vs State of Karnataka