Sri Rudramurthy H B Vs the State of Karnataka

SRI RUDRAMURTHY H. B., S/O BAVISIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, WAS WORKING AS ASSISTANT MASTER, SRI BEERALINGESHWARA HIGH SCHOOL, HOCHIHALLI, YAGATI HOBLI, KADUR TQ, CHIKKAMANGALURU DISTRICT, CHIKKAMANGALURU-577 548.

¶12

…APPELLANT

¶13

(BY SRI SATISH K., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (PRIMARY AND SECONDARY), REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRERTARY, M.S.BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶17

THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,

¶18

K.R.CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶19

THE DIRECTOR (SECONDARY), DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,

¶20

K.R.CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶21

2 -

¶22

NC: 2025:KHC:50467-DB WA No. 5379 of 2016

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, CHIKKAMANGALURU DISTRICT, CHIKKAMANGALURU-577 548.

¶25

THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER, KADUR TQ, CHIKKAMANGALURU DISTRICT, CHIKKAMANGALURU-577 548.

¶26

SRI BEERALINGESHWARA VIDYA SAMSTHE, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, HOCHIHALLI, YAGATI HOBLI, KADUR TALUK, CHIKKAMANGALURU DISTRICT, CHIKKAMANGALURU-577 548.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI NEELAKANTAPPA K. PUJAR, HCGP FOR R1 TO R5; SRI S. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R6)

¶29

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION No.45528/16 DATED 25.10.2016.

¶30

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI and

¶32

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶33

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶34

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI)

¶35

Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

¶36

This appeal has been filed seeking to set aside the judgment dated 25.10.2016 in W.P. No.45528/2016. The writ petition was filed for quashing the order dated 28.07.2016 passed by the State Government in the Revision Petition

¶37

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:50467-DB WA No. 5379 of 2016

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

No.105/2015. The Revision Petition was filed seeking to challenge the memorandum granting permission to fill vacant post of Assistant Teacher - Arts, inviting applications from the public at large against the post for which the appellant is working. As per the memorandum, the post of Assistant Teacher - Arts, which is notified by respondent No.6, is reserved for General-Women despite the fact that there is a single post for the Assistant Teacher-Arts in the institution.

¶40

2.1 It is stated that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and Others vs. K. Govindappa and Another¹ , which held that for a single post, there cannot be any reservation.

¶41

The contention of learned counsel for the

¶42

appellant/petitioner is that as per Clause (b) of sub-Rule (3) of Rule 6 of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977² , the appellant would have been eligible for that post inasmuch as his maximum age limit for appointment

¶43

1 (2009) 1 SCC page 1

¶44

2 Rules 1977

¶45

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:50467-DB WA No. 5379 of 2016

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

would be deemed to be enhanced in the cases covered by Clause (b) of the aforesaid Rule 6(3) of the Rules, 1977. It is stated that, given the amended provision to the Schedule in the Karnataka Education Department Services (Department of Public Instructions) (Recruitment) Rules, 1967³ , the age limit for direct recruitment for the categories of posts, in respect of which, the aforesaid memorandum dated 08.07.2015 was issued, provided that the age limit as per the provisions of Rule 6 of the Rules 1977 would apply provided that in the cases of candidates who have worked as part time teachers in Government High School and Government Composite P.U. Colleges shall be enhanced by the number of years during which he is or was holding such post, subject to a maximum of 10 years. It is stated that Rule 4 of the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Recruitment and Terms and Conditions of Service of Employees in Private Aided Primary and Secondary Educational Institutions) Rules, 1999⁴ provides that no employee who is not within the age limit prescribed for recruitment to the corresponding posts in Government

¶48

3 Rules 1967

¶49

4 Rules 1999

¶50

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:50467-DB WA No. 5379 of 2016

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

educational institutions shall be eligible for appointment to any

¶53

post in any Institution. Therefore, it is his contention, that given the aforesaid provision brought about by amendment in the Schedule of the Rules of 1967, the appellant would have been eligible for the aforesaid post notified on 08.07.2015, which has wrongly been reserved for women being a single post in the institution.

¶54

It is therefore stated that the Learned Single Judge has incorrectly held that the appellant is not eligible for this post and therefore, the petition was dismissed.

¶55

As far as the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, while relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of K. Govindappa (supra), that there cannot be any reservation for a single post, the same cannot be disputed. However, to avail the benefit, the appellant had to establish that in terms of the amendment to the Schedule of the Rules of 1967, he worked as a part-time teacher in the respondent No.6 institution. Only on establishment of the aforesaid fact, could the appellant claim eligibility to the benefit of the aforesaid amendment to the Schedule in the Rules,

¶56

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:50467-DB WA No. 5379 of 2016

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

1967, when read in conjunction with Rule 4 of the Rules, 1999.

¶59

That being not the case, the appellant stands ineligible for the aforesaid sole post which results in his lack of locus standi to maintain the appeal.

¶60

For the reasons aforesaid, we do not find any error or illegality in the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge, which is based on sound reasoning and appropriate analysis of the provisions of law. This appeal is therefore dismissed.

¶61

Sd/(JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE

¶62

Sd/(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE

¶63

MV

¶64

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13

Sri Rudramurthy H B v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Rudramurthy H B v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narayanappa Since Deceased by Lrs Vs Krishnappa

Sri K R Lokesh Vs Sri David Raju

Gouri Rudrappa Budhihall Vs the National Board of Examinations in Medicals Sciences (Nbems)

Smt. Namita Samantara Vs Directorate of Enforcement (Pmla)

Bangalore Development Authority Vs Sri. S. Venkata Reddy

Smt Rupa Vs Sri v Manjunath