Disposed

Dr. Poornima S/ Hebbar v. the Secretary

Karnataka HC13 Aug 2024WP/77883/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Challenging a circular withdrawing equivalence of M.A. Folklore to Kannada for Guest Lecturer recruitment, the Court held that change in policy cannot be challenged on legitimate expectation grounds. The petition was disposed of by directing respondents to consider the petitioner's representations expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to respondents no. 1 and 3 to consider petitioner's representations expeditiously.

Dr. Poornima S/ Hebbar Vs the Secretary — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:11617 WP No. 77883 of 2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO.77883 OF 2013 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

DR. POORNIMA S. HEBBAR W/O. SHANKAR NAGARAKATTI, AGE: 36 YEARS, R/O: MARIKAMBA NAGAR, SIRSI, KARWAR DIST.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRIYUTHS MRUTYUNJAYA S. HALLIKERI, S.G.KADADAKATTI AND LINGESH V.KATTIMANI, ADVOCATES)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶12

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER FOR COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, BANGALORE 1, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE.

¶14

THE JOINT DIRECTOR, COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, COLLEGE ROAD, DHARWAD.

¶15

THE REGISTRAR, KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY, PAVATE NAGAR, DHARWAD.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC-D:11617 WP No. 77883 of 2013

¶18

THE HEAD OF DEPARTMENT, DEPARTMENT OF KANNADA, KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY, DHARWAD.

¶19

THE PRINCIPAL GOVERNMENT, FIRST GRADE DEGREE COLLEGE SIRSI, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI P.N.HATTI, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3 AND R6; R4 AND R5 ARE SERVED)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE CIRCULAR DATED 30.07.2012 NO. ED 55 DCE 2005, CONDITION NO.1, TO THE EXTENT OF STATING NOT TO TREAT EQUAL IN THE CONCERN SUBJECT ISSUED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND TO ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.,

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

¶25

NC: 2024:KHC-D:11617 WP No. 77883 of 2013

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Since matter is of year 2013, it is taken up for disposal.

¶28

Challenging condition no.1 in circular dated

¶29

30.07.2012 in Annexure-E issued by respondent no.1, this writ petition is filed.

¶30

Petitioner claims to have educational qualification of M.A., in Arts and M.Phil., and on said basis appointed as Guest Lecturer in respondent no.6 Institution for 3 years. After issuance of circular at Annexure-E, respondent no.6 refused to select petitioner as Guest Lecturer.

¶31

Sri Mrutyunjaya S.Hallikeri, learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner had completed post graduation in Folklore subject and until issuance of Circular at Annexure-E, said subject was considered equivalent to post graduate degree in Kannada language and petitioner was permitted to apply for selection as Guest Lecturer in Kannada language. Referring to endorsement at Annexure-L was submitted that for purposes of recruitment by Karnataka Public Service Commission, post graduate degree in Folklore subject was

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC-D:11617 WP No. 77883 of 2013

¶34

considered equivalent to Kannada language. And since selection of Guest Lecturer was also in nature of recruitment for Government Institutions, similar yardstick ought to have been applied. Therefore petitioner had submitted representations to respondents no.1 & 3 as per Annexures-F & G. Since same had remained without consideration, learned counsel submitted petitioner would be satisfied, if direction is issued for consideration of her representations at Annexures-F & G, in light of endorsement at Annexure-L.

¶35

On other hand learned High Court Government Pleader for respondents no.1 to 3 and 6 sought to oppose writ petition. It was firstly submitted, while inclusion of candidates with post graduate degree in Folklore subject for purposes of appointment of Guest Lecturer for Kannada language prior to issuance of Annexure-E cannot be disputed, issuance of Circular at Annexure-E would signify a change in policy. Same was apparently due to fact that sufficient number of candidates were found to be available in relevant subject itself. Therefore there was no need for

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC-D:11617 WP No. 77883 of 2013

¶38

stipulating equivalent qualifications. Merely on ground that

¶39

there was change in policy and petitioner would be adversely affected would not be ground for challenging policy. On said ground sought for dismissal of writ petition.

¶40

Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition record.

¶41

From above, it appears petitioner is aggrieved by condition no.1 regarding withdrawal of equivalence. At same time petitioner seeks for direction for consideration of her representation at Annexures-F & G. Even if earlier practice of permitting candidates with equivalent qualification to apply for selection as Guest Lecturers is considered as giving rise to a legitimate expectation, Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India and others Vs. Hindustan Development Corporation and others reported in (1993) 3 SCC 499 has held principle of legitimate expectations cannot be raised in case of change in policy.

¶42

Since petitioner has submitted representations

¶43

at Annexures-F & G and same apparently appear to be

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC-D:11617 WP No. 77883 of 2013

¶46

pending consideration, instead of deciding validity of condition in Annexure-E, it would be appropriate to dispose of writ petition by directing respondents no.1 and 3 to consider petitioner’s representation at Annexures-F & G respectively in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. Accordingly writ petition is disposed of.

¶47

Sd/(RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶48

CLK,EM CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37

Dr. Poornima S/ Hebbar v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Poornima S/ Hebbar v. the Secretary

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

Smt.H.v.Mangala D/O.Veerappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Mallavva W/O Siddalingappa Naikar Vs the Accountant Officer

Sri a Sree Ramulu S/O Late Sri B Thimmappa Vs Shri B Balasubramanyam S/O Late B Laxminarayana Sharma

Smt Rekha S W/O Ambarishaiah. G Vs Shri Ambarsihaiah G S/O Gundaiah Tondehal Hiremath

Uma Satish Kamble Vs the Chairman and Managing Director

Smt. Shaihinaj W/O Late Abdulrazak Dharwad Vs the Superintendent Engineer (v)