B O Gangadharappa Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10925 WP No. 1148 of 2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 1148 OF 2013 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

B.O. GANGADHARAPPA S/O SRI ONKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, WORKING AS RESEARCH ASSISTANT (AUDIT SECTION), KUVEMPU INSTITUTE OF KANNADA STUDIES, UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE, MANASA GANGOTRI, MYSORE, RESIDING AT NO.455, 15^TH CROSS, 'G' BLOCK, RAMAKRISHNANAGAR, MYSORE-23.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. RAKSHITH R., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M. SUBRAMANYA BHAT, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. (HIGHER EDUCATION) M.S. BUILDING. BANGALORE-560001.

¶13

THE KARNATAKA SANSKRIT UNIVERSITY PAMPA MAHAKAVI ROAD, CHAMARAJAPET, BANGALORE-560018, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR

¶14

THE VICE CHANCELLOR KARNATAKA SANSKRIT UNIVERSITY, PAMPA MAHAKAVI ROAD, CHAMARAJAPET, BANGALORE-560018.

¶15

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10925 WP No. 1148 of 2013

¶16

SRI UDAYANA HEGADE FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, MAJOR IN AGE, RESIDING AT AKSHARAM, 8^TH CROSS, 2^ND PHASE, GIRINAGAR, BANGALORE-85.

¶17

SRI. RAGHAVA K.L. FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, MAJOR IN AGE, RESIDING AT NO.641/A, 5^TH MAIN, 3^RD CROSS, NEAR MARUTI GUDI, BEHIND KAMALESH HOSPITAL, SARASWATIPURAM, MYSORE-09 AMENDED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 21.06.2017

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. NEELAKANTAPPA K. PUJAR, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

¶20

SRI. ABHINAV R., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2;

¶21

SRI. K.C.SHANTHAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3;

¶22

SRI. M.B.NARGUND, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. LAXMINARAYAN N. HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.4 AND 5)

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 TO INTERVIEW THE PETITIONER TO THE POST OF PLANNING ASSISTANT AS NOTIFIED VIDE NOTIFICATION DATED 16.07.2012 VIDE ANNEXURE-D, AS NOT INVITING THE PETITIONER FOR INTERVIEW AMOUNTS TO VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 14, 16, 19 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ETC.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10925 WP No. 1148 of 2013

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to interview him for the post of Planning Assistant vide recruitment notification dated 16.07.2012. He has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to select and appoint him to the post of Planning Assistant, if he is found fit after an interview.

¶29

The petitioner contends that the respondent No.2 published a notification dated 16.07.2012, inviting applications from eligible candidates to various posts, including 10 posts of Planning Assistants and Deputy Registrars. The qualification prescribed for the post of Planning Assistants was a Master Degree in the relevant subject (Sanskrit) with 55% of the marks and he or she must have studied Sanskrit as an optional subject in the Degree course. Preference was given to the candidates who had passed National Eligibility Test (henceforth referred to as 'N.E.T.') and acquired Vidwath in traditional system in the field of specialization. The petitioner contends that he possessed all the qualifications except N.E.T.

¶30

4 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:10925 WP No. 1148 of 2013

¶32

Therefore, he applied for the post of Planning Assistant as per the application dated 10.08.2012 along with all relevant documents. The petitioner contends that though he possessed all the eligibility, he was not called for an interview that was held on 04.01.2013. He came to know of the interview through one of his friends. Later he contacted the respondent No.2 through phone, who informed the petitioner that he was not eligible for appointment as he had crossed the maximum age prescribed. The petitioner contends that he had worked as a Lecturer in Sanskrit for 10 years and therefore, he was entitled to relaxation of 5 years and thus, was eligible to apply to the post of Planning Assistant. He contends that in the same notification, he had also applied for the post of Deputy Registrar and was issued with an intimation dated 13.09.2012 to appear for the interview that was scheduled on 21.09.2012. The petitioner therefore contends that the reasons cited by the respondent No.2 for not interviewing the petitioner was unsustainable. The respondent No.2 thereafter published a list of candidates who were to be interviewed by the respondent No.2 on 04.01.2013 and thus, the petitioner filed this writ petition seeking for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct

¶33

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10925 WP No. 1148 of 2013

¶34

the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to interview him and to select him to the post of Planning Assistant if he was found fit after the interview. During the pendency of this writ petition, respondent Nos.4 and 5 were selected to the post of Planning Assistant and therefore, they were impleaded in the writ petition, though no relief was sought to set at naught the appointment orders issued to the respondent Nos.4 and 5.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above contentions and contended that since the petitioner had worked in an aided institution for more than 10 years, he was entitled for relaxation of age up to 5 years. He contends that the said benefit was not given to the petitioner, who was 39 years old as on the date of application and therefore was eligible to apply. He referred to the Cadre and Recruitment Rules of respondent No.2 and contended that the respondent No.2 had admitted granting the benefit of relaxation of age in respect of all those employees who were working in the University. Therefore, he contends that the petitioner must have been granted the benefit of relaxation of age to apply.

¶36

The respondent Nos.2 and 3 have contested the

¶37

writ petition by filing a detailed statement of objections,

¶38

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10925 WP No. 1148 of 2013

¶39

contending inter alia that, as per the notification, the maximum age to apply in the general category was 35 years and if an applicant had rendered service in any Central/State/Public Sector/Local Authorities under the control of the Government Boards or Corporations, then such applicant would be entitled to relaxation of age to the extent of his service, subject to a maximum of 5 years. It is contended that since the petitioner claimed that he was working in a private institution as a Lecturer in Sanskrit for 10 years, he would not be entitled to the benefit of relaxation of age.

¶40

Respondent Nos.4 and 5 have also contested the writ petition by filing a detailed statement of objections, contending inter alia that they possessed all the qualifications and eligibility and also cleared the N.E.T and hence were called for an interview. They also contended that the petitioner was not eligible and therefore was not called for an interview.

¶41

Learned Senior Counsel representing the respondent Nos.4 and 5 submitted that the relaxation of the age as per the recruitment notification is only applicable to Central/State government/Local Authorities/Public Sector undertakings and

¶42

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:10925 WP No. 1148 of 2013

¶43

not to an employee of a private aided institution. He contended that as a matter of fact, the petitioner who was not selected to the post of Deputy Registrar, questioned the same in W.P.No.21896/2013 and 28172/2013 and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held that the petitioner was not eligible for relaxation of age. He contends that this finding has become final as the petitioner has not challenged the order passed in the writ petition. He therefore contends that this writ petition also has to meet the same fate.

¶44

I have considered the submissions of the learned

¶45

counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and the learned Senior Counsel representing the respondent Nos.4 and 5.

¶46

The recruitment notification issued by the respondent No.2, specifically provided the qualification for the post of Planning Assistant as follows:

¶47

PÀæ. ¸ÀA.	ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÉÃvÀ£À±À±ÉæÃtÂ	«zÁåºÀðvÉ
01	AiÉÆÃd£Á ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀgÀÄ	Must be a holde	r of
	(±ÉÊPÀëtÂPÀ)	Master's Degree relevant subject with	in 55%
	gÀÆ.21600-40050	of marks. Must	have
		studied Sanskrit	as
		optional subject in	the

¶48

8 -

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:10925 WP No. 1148 of 2013

¶50

Degree course. Preference
being given to the
candidates who have
cleared National Eligibility
Test and acquired
Vidwath in Traditional
System in the field of
specialization.

¶51

As regards the eligibility, it specified as follows: 3. ªÀAiÉÆÃ«Äw: CfðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¹éÃPÀj¸À®Ä ¤UÀ¢¥Àr¹zÀ PÉÆ£ÉAiÀÄ ¢£ÀAPÀzÀAzÀÄ C¨sÀåyðAiÀÄÄ-

¶52

(C) PÀ¤µÀ×18 ªÀµÀð	(D) UÀjµÀ×ªÀAiÉÆÃ«Äw:
ªÀAiÀÄ¸Àì£ÀÄß ¥ÀÆgÉÊ¹gÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ	(i) ¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå ªÀUÀð-35 ªÀµÀð (ii) EvÀgÉ
	»AzÀÄ½zÀ ªÀUÀð - 38 ªÀµÀð (iii)
	¥À.eÁ/¥À.¥ÀA./¥ÀæªÀUÀð-1-40 ªÀµÀð

¶53

10. The relaxation of age was provided as follows:

¶54

"i) C¨sÀåyðAiÀÄÄ PÉÃAzÀæ / gÁdå ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ CxÀªÁ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¸ÁéªÀÄå / ¤AiÀÄAvÀætzÀ°ègÀÄªÀ ¸ÀÜ½ÃAiÀÄ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀ / ¤UÀªÀÄUÀ¼À°è ºÀÄzÉÝ ºÉÆA¢gÀÄªÀ / »AzÉ ºÉÆA¢zÀÝ°è UÀjµÀ× ªÀAiÉÆÃ«ÄwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß CªÀ£ÀÄ/ CªÀ¼ÀÄ JµÀÄÖ ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À CªÀ¢üUÉ D ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ°è ¸À°è¸ÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀgÉÆÃ / »AzÉ ¸À°è¹zÀÝgÉÆÃ CµÀÄÖ ªÀµÀðUÀ¼ÀÄ CxÀªÁ 5 (LzÀÄ) ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À CªÀ¢ü CzÀgÀ°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÀÄ PÀrªÉÄAiÉÆÃ CµÀÄÖ ªÀµÀðUÀ¼ÀÄ".

¶55

The petitioner was admittedly aged 39 years as on

¶56

the date of the application. He claims that he was employed as a Teacher at Bharati Residential Composite Pre University College, Mandya, between 2000-2001 and 2010-2011 and

¶57

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:10925 WP No. 1148 of 2013

¶58

contended that the said College was granted aid by the State Government. However, the notification ;did not provide for relaxation of age in respect of employees who were employed in an aided institution. This very question was considered by the Co-ordinate bench of this Court in W.P.No.21896/2013 connected with W.P.No.28172/2013 where it was held as follows:

¶59

"17. It is, thus, clear that a candidate working under the University or the Government or the local bodies such as Corporations / City Municipal Councils or Undertakings of the Government would be entitled for higher age limit corresponding to the number of years they had rendered their services there, subject to the maximum of ten years.

¶60

18. It is to be borne in mind that the exemption granted is in respect of the age limit in the specified category of candidates i.e., candidates who worked either in a university or under the government or a local body. The exemption will have to be considered strictly and cannot be enlarged to bring within its purview institutions other than those prescribed. As could be seen from Clause 9(a), the exemption is specifically to those employees who are directly working under the University or the Government or a local body. This exemption cannot be extended to an employees who works in a private institution which is admitted to grant.

¶61

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:10925 WP No. 1148 of 2013

¶62

19. It is to be borne in mind that a private educational institution would always be a private institution even if it was receiving grant-in-aid. It is, no doubt, true that on receiving grant-in-aid, the private institution would be subjected to a certain degree if controlled by the Government. However, the said control by itself would not translate into the Government becoming the employer".

¶63

Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that he was entitled for relaxation of age, is already answered by a Co-ordinate bench of this Court and therefore, the petitioner cannot reassert the said question to claim that he was entitled to be interviewed by the respondent No.2 for the post of Planning Assistant.

¶64

In that view of the matter, this writ petition does

¶65

not merit consideration and hence, it is dismissed .

¶66

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶67

BKN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41

B O Gangadharappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B O Gangadharappa 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

A D Krishnegowda Vs Smt Kenchamma

Smt G Prathima Vs the State of Karnataka

S K Chowdappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Jagadish M K Vs State of Karnataka

Dr Chaitanya P R Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Ashok B Hugar Vs the Karnataka Power Corporation Limited