Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 18 (KAR)

Nagaraj S. Jog v. State of Karnataka

2015-01-05

L.NARAYANA SWAMY

body2015
Order L. Narayana Swamy, J. 1. The facts in brief are that the petitioner has been appointed as Lecturer in the Department of Mechanical Engineering in the third respondent-Institution as per the appointment order dated 15th February, 2002. Appointment was on a consolidated salary of Rs. 4,000/- per month with effect from 4th March, 2002 till the end of Academic Year 2001-2002. The petitioner has produced the copy of the appointment order dated 15th February, 2002 issued vide Annexure-A issued by the office of the Chairman, Hyderabad-Karnataka Education Society, Gulbarga. Since the date of his appointment he has been working to his dedication without any adverse remark from the respondent-Institution. It is stated that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste category. After having been so appointed and served for more than one year, the fourth respondent vide Annexure-C addressed a letter dated 12th August, 2002 vide Annexure-C to the Director, Technical Education Department, Government of Karnataka, Bangalore to treat the petitioner's appointment against the backlog vacancy and sanction the salary to that effect. In the meanwhile, the petitioner has also been extended the pay-scale as per All India Council for Technical Education ('AICTE' for short) pay-scale and the petitioner has been serving in the respondent-Institution for more than ten years as such. As things stood thus, the respondent had issued notification as per Annexure-D in No. PDACEG/Est-I/2012-13/1289, dated 17th November, 2012 inviting applications from eligible SC/ST candidates to fill-up backlog vacancy in the Department of Mechanical Engineering. The said notification is the subject-matter is this petition and the prayer is to set aside the same. A further prayer is also made for a direction to the respondents 1 and 2, i.e., State of Karnataka and the Director, Technical Education, Government of Karnataka to treat the appointment of the petitioner vide order dated 15th February, 2002 for grant-in-aid with all consequential benefits. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working in the respondent-Institution for the last 12 years and that too when he belongs to Scheduled Caste Category there was no necessity for the respondent-Institution to issue notification inviting applications from the eligible SC/ST candidates for filling-up backlog vacancy. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working in the respondent-Institution for the last 12 years and that too when he belongs to Scheduled Caste Category there was no necessity for the respondent-Institution to issue notification inviting applications from the eligible SC/ST candidates for filling-up backlog vacancy. He submits that the Government order dated 21st November, 2001 and 1st June, 2002 issued by the State Government to fill-up the backlog vacancy enables to appoint, after classifying the post for the candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe category. If the classification is made by the respondent there was no necessity for issuance of notification since the said post is being occupied by the petitioner who is a Scheduled Caste candidate in a substantive manner and has been working there for more than a decade. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the third respondent-Institution submits to dismiss this petition. He submits that Annexure-C itself explains that salary has been paid by the respondent-Institution and the petitioner has not been removed and now his case has to be considered in the light of the notification issued, if he responds to the said notification. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, has filed statement of objections and submitted that the Government notification is issued in the year 2001 and as per the said notification the respondent-institution was supposed to inform the State Government as to the number of posts that fall vacant for the purpose of filling-up as backlog vacancies. On the basis of supply of such an information, the respondent-Institution was supposed to fill-up the said post and accordingly, there is no error committed by it and attempt has been made to fill-up backlog post, but in view of the stay granted by this Court, the process of selection not been completed. 5. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. The case of the petitioner that he is working in the substantive post against the backlog vacancy cannot be accepted. His very initial appointment as per Annexure-A, dated 15th February, 2002 is on a consolidated salary of Rs. 4,000/- per month with effect from 4th March, 2002 for the academic year 2001-2002. This appointment order is self-explanatory which appoints the petitioner for a period of one year that too purely on temporary basis. His very initial appointment as per Annexure-A, dated 15th February, 2002 is on a consolidated salary of Rs. 4,000/- per month with effect from 4th March, 2002 for the academic year 2001-2002. This appointment order is self-explanatory which appoints the petitioner for a period of one year that too purely on temporary basis. When that being the case, he cannot claim himself as person appointed as against backlog vacancy. Secondly, backlog notification was issued in November 2001 whereas appointment of the petitioner was 15th February, 2002. If at all the petitioner was appointed against the backlog vacancy, there should have been a sanction by the Government itself. Secondly, the claim of the petitioner that he is a Scheduled Caste person and entitled to be appointed against backlog vacancy also cannot be accepted. The initial appointment itself discloses that the petitioner was appointed not as a person belonging to Scheduled Caste category. His appointment was purely on temporary basis from among general category. The letter dated 12th August, 2002 addressed by the fourth respondent-Institution to the Director, Department of Technical Education further fortifies the case of the respondent-Government wherein it is stated that the salary of the petitioner has been paid by the Institution itself and it is a liability on it and hence his appointment be treated as against the backlog vacancy. When the respondent-Institution had no authority to appoint a person against the backlog vacancy, without obtaining permission from the Government a selection is made as per requirement of backlog rules, it is improper on the part of respondent-Institution to engage the services of the petitioner. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is to be considered on the ground of equity since he has been serving in the institution for more than a decade and if the respondent is permitted to invite applications from eligible SC/ST candidates outside, he would be ineligible for want of age and may be on merit also. When a set of rules are in force, the selection has to be made strictly in accordance those rules. Equity should follow the law and shall not confront law. When backlog selection has to be made in accordance with law, then the entire selection should be made strictly in accordance with the said law. When a set of rules are in force, the selection has to be made strictly in accordance those rules. Equity should follow the law and shall not confront law. When backlog selection has to be made in accordance with law, then the entire selection should be made strictly in accordance with the said law. Though the petitioner has been appointed for a period of one year purely on temporary basis, but he has been continued for more than a decade without issuance of backlog notification. Now, if the fourth respondent is allowed to select candidates by issuing notification inviting applications from eligible SC/ST candidates, the chances of the persons like petitioner getting selected would be bleak unless he is a meritorious candidate or fall within the age group. The petitioner shall not be treated as a person belonging to Scheduled Caste for the purpose of backlog since his initial appointment was not against a reserved post. It is also made clear that since the petitioner has been working as Lecturer in the Department of Mechanical Engineering from the date of appointment, i.e., for more than a decade, his services has to be continued and the backlog post shall be filled up separately as per the Government notification, at the earliest. Hence, the following: ORDER The respondents 2 and 3 are directed to reissue notification Annexure-D, dated 17th November, 2012 for filling up backlog vacancy insofar as the Lecturer in the Department of Mechanical Engineering is concerned, within a period of four weeks and further the selection should be done within a period of two months thereafter. With these observations and directions, petition stands disposed of. Disposed off.