Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 385 (KAR)

M. B. HONNAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2000-06-07

V.GOPALA GOWDA

body2000
( 1 ) IN these two writ petitions the prayers are to quash the impugned orders by which the appointment of certain teaching and non-teaching staff have been approved. While W. P. No, 26343 of 1993 is filed by one of the Directors of Sri Gurusiddeshwaraswamy Educational institution of Tumkur, W. P. No. 11580 of 1992 is filed by the same institution represented by its secretary. Since both the petitions involve identical facts and similar grounds, these writ petitions are disposed of by this common order. ( 2 ) THE solitary ground raised in the first writ petition is that the appointment of respondents 6 to 9 is opposed to Article 16 (4) of the Constitution as reservation policy was not followed and hence the approval of those appointments is bad in law. This writ petition is liable to be dismissed for the following reasons.- (a) The appointments were made pursuant to the resolution at Annexure-R1, dated 10-12-1989. The petitioner was a signatory to the said resolution. Therefore, he is estopped from challenging the appointment of respondents 6 to 9 on the ground that roster system was not followed. (b) By Government Order at Annexure-R7, dated 21-4-1995 the Government has waived the violations committed by the educational institutions in the appointment of teaching and non-teaching staff subject to certain conditions. In view of that, the point sought to be made out does not survive for consideration. (c) Annexures-R2 and R3 produced along with the statement of objections filed on behalf of respondents 4 and 6 to 9 would disclose that eligible Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates were not available both from the Social Welfare Department and the Employment exchange. That being the position, the institution had no other option but to appoint the staff from general category. In the circumstances, the prayer sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. (d) The petitioner being the Director of the educational institution, should not have filed this writ petition. If the appointment of respondents 6 to 9 are eliminated the services of these respondents will not be available to the institution until fresh appointments are made. Added to this, the career of the students would be largely affected. The action of the petitioner in challenging the appointment of these respondents is detrimental to the institution and the students. If the appointment of respondents 6 to 9 are eliminated the services of these respondents will not be available to the institution until fresh appointments are made. Added to this, the career of the students would be largely affected. The action of the petitioner in challenging the appointment of these respondents is detrimental to the institution and the students. Instead of safeguarding the interest of the institution and the welfare of the students, petitioner is conducting himself in the opposite direction. He should have refrained himself in filing this writ petition with the prayer sought for. (e) None of the persons belonging to reserved category, viz. , Scheduled Castes and Scheduled tribes, approached this Court alleging that injustice has been caused to them by the appointment of respondents 6 to 9 who belong to general category. The petitioner cannot be a aggrieved person by the appointment of respondents 6 to 9. (f) One of the conditions imposed in the impugned order is that the existing vacant posts shall be filled up from among the Scheduled Caste/tribe candidates only. This is in conformity with the resolution passed by the Committee of the fourth respondent-Institution Government Orders at annexures-R6 and R7. Therefore, question of quashing the approval of appointment of respondents 6 to 9 does not arise. (g) Even if the impugned order at Annexure-D is quashed, respondents 6 to 9 will continue in service as only their approval of appointment is sought to be quashed and their appointments will remain in force. Thus, no purpose would be achieved by the petitioner even if his prayer is granted. Hence, it has to be held that the writ petition is misconceived. (h) The appointment of respondents 6 to 9 had been made way back in the year 1991. They have already put in a service of nearly a decade and they are settled in their life. They cannot be subjected to worry after such a long period of their service. ( 3 ) IN the second writ petition, the institution has sought to quash the impugned order at annexure-A by which the appointment of respondents 3 to 5 have been approved. One of the grounds urged is that reservation policy was not followed, as has been contended in the first writ petition. ( 3 ) IN the second writ petition, the institution has sought to quash the impugned order at annexure-A by which the appointment of respondents 3 to 5 have been approved. One of the grounds urged is that reservation policy was not followed, as has been contended in the first writ petition. This ground is covered in the reasons assigned while dealing with the first writ petition and the same need not be repeated. ( 4 ) THE second ground taken is that the recommendation for approval of appointment of respondents 3 to 5 was sent by the President who is not authorised to do so as only the Secretary of the institution is authorised in this bebalf. The appointment of respondents 3 to 5 by the institution is not in dispute. If they are appointed by the petitioner-institution, it is the bounden duty of the institution to seek approval of their appointments. It makes no difference whether the president seeks such approval or the Secretary. The contention that only Secretary is authorised under the bye-laws to make correspondence is not correct. Clause (b) of Bye-law 23 of the bye-laws at Annexure-C empowers the President to execute the decisions either by himself or through the authorised officer. ( 5 ) THE reasons assigned in paragraphs (g) and (h) above while considering the first writ petition holds good for this writ petition also. This writ petition is also liable to be dismissed for these reasons. ( 6 ) NONE of the contentions raised in these two writ petitions are tenable. The writ petitions are devoid of merit and they are liable to be dismissed. ( 7 ) ACCORDINGLY, the writ petition stands dismissed.