Sri. G.T. Lokanatha Vs the State of Karnataka

KARNATAKA RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS SOCIETY, NO.179, 1^ST AND 3^RD FLOOR, ROOPA COMPLEX, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-560020, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

¶14

K. LAKSHMI FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN, MAJOR, REGISTER NO.150851, C/O KARNATAKA RESIDENTIAL, EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS SOCIETY, NO.179, 1^ST AND 3^RD FLOOR,

¶15

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9979 WP No. 15469 of 2015

¶16

ROOPA COMPLEX, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, SESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE-560020

¶17

DELETED AS PER ORDER DATED 12.06.2023.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. JAYALINGAYYA MUDENOORMATH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. C. SRINIVASA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED FINAL LIST BEARING NO.KAVASHISASA/ADALITHA/HONE/C.R.-01/2013-14 DATED 17.03.2014 PUBLISHED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT IN SO FAR AS INCLUSION OF THE NAME OF THE 3^RD RESPONDENT IS CONCERNED, AS THE 3^RD RESPONDENT HAD SCORED ONLY 63.51% COMPARED TO THE PETITIONER WHO ALSO BELONG TO CATEGORYI GROUP AND STUDIED IN KANNADA MEDIUM AND POSSESSED WITH 68.48% VIDE ANNEXURE-U AND ETC.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The petitioner has challenged a final select list bearing No.KaVAShiSaSa/Adalitha/Hone/C.R-01/2013-14 dated 17.03.2014 published by the respondent No.2 in so far as it relates to the respondent No.3. He has also sought for a writ in

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:9979 WP No. 15469 of 2015

¶27

the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider his representations dated 14.07.2014 and 09.01.2015 to include his name in the final select list.

¶28

(i) The petitioner contends that he was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Social Studies and later was placed as in-charge Principal through an outsourced agency at Morarji Desai Residential School, Davangere. He contends that in the year 2014, the respondents issued a recruitment notification. He contends that he participated in the recruitment process but was not selected. He thereafter filed a writ petition before this Court for regularization of his services. This Court disposed off the writ petition granting weightage for the past services rendered by the petitioner through the outsourced agency.

¶29

(ii) He contends that the governing council of the respondent No.2 took a decision to absorb persons who were working as Principal and Teachers in Morarji Desai and Kittoor Rani Chennamma Residential Schools, on contract basis. Accordingly a notification was issued on 07.05.2011 by which, 459 persons were absorbed, pursuant to the Karnataka Residential Educational Institutions Society (Absorption of

¶30

4 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:9979 WP No. 15469 of 2015

¶32

Persons working as Principals and Teachers in Morarji Desai and Kitturu Rani Chennamma Residential schools on contract basis into establishment of Karnataka Residential Educational Institutions Society) (Special) Regulations, 2011 (henceforth referred to as 'Regulations, 2011'). He contends that his name was left out, though, he fulfilled all the conditions prescribed under the Regulations, 2011. Later the respondent No.1 published another notification dated 21.01.2011 specifying the cadre and recruitment rules. In the said rules, weightage of 5% was given to every person for every completed year of service subject to maximum of 40% as a one time measure. He contends that the respondent No.1 had invited applications from eligible candidates to fill up the post of teachers in various subjects by notification dated 27.04.2011. He contends that some teachers who were working on contract basis through agencies filed W.P.No.20204-20366/2011 and connected writ petitions, where this Court directed the respondent No.1 to regularize the principal and teachers appointed on contract basis and also declared that they were entitled for service benefits weightage. This was unsuccessfully challenged in

¶33

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9979 WP No. 15469 of 2015

¶34

W.A.No.5127/2013 and the division bench upheld the directions issued by the learned Single Judge.

¶35

(iii) He contends that the respondent No.2 published a weightage list of candidates on 07.07.2014 where the name of the petitioner was not found. The petitioner submitted representations and requested the respondent No.2 to include his name. However, the respondent No.2 announced the final select list selecting candidates, who had lesser percentage than him. The petitioner is therefore before this Court challenging the selection.

¶36

The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above contentions and contended that the petitioner was entitled to service weightage and if granted, he had a fair chance of being selected. He also contended that many candidates who had secured lesser percentage were selected and therefore, the impugned selection has to be set at naught and the petitioner be declared as selected.

¶37

The writ petition is opposed by the respondent No.2 who contends that the petitioner was not entitled to be selected as he had secured 48.3% marks in the selection and he was

¶38

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9979 WP No. 15469 of 2015

¶39

granted weightage at the rate of 5% for 03 years of service and therefore, the total marks secured by the petitioner was 63.3% while cut off percentage for selection to the post of principal was 66.15% and in respect of teacher who had qualified in social studies, the cut off marks prescribed was 67.33%. He therefore contends that the petitioner was rightly not selected.

¶40

I have carefully considered the submissions of the

¶41

learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent. I have also perused the material on record.

¶42

The learned counsel for the petitioner did not dispute the fact that the petitioner had secured only 48.3% of marks in the qualifying exam and that he was granted weightage at the rate of 5% for 03 years of service, that he had put in as a Principal. Therefore, the total percentage of marks the petitioner secured was 63.3% which was less than 66.15% prescribed for the post of Principal and 67.33% prescribed for a teacher in social studies. Therefore, there is no error committed by the respondents in selecting the respondent No.3 or any other candidate who had secured more than what the petitioner had secured.

¶43