Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 253 (KAR)

Shobha H. Hegade v. State Of Karnataka And Others

2020-01-28

SHANKAR GANAPATHI PANDIT

body2020
JUDGMENT Shankar Ganapathi Pandit, J. - The petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the following reliefs: (a) Writ of certiorari or any other writ to quash the order of appointment of respondent No. 7 to the post of Block Technical Manager (BTM), passed by respondent No. 6 dated 01.10.2019 reference No. A.R.C./Ho.GU.Si/U.Kru.Ni. Ko/2019-2020, the copy of the same is produced at Annexure-A; (b) A writ of mandamus or direction in the nature of writ directing respondent No. 2 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 31.01.2019 and 25.10.2019, as per Annexure-B and C respectively. 2. The brief facts of the case are that: The petitioner, who holds B.Sc.(Agricultural) Degree was appointed as Block Technical Manager (BTM for short) and posted to Raitha Samparka Kendra, Koppal, under Annexure-D dated 01.07.2018 by the ARC, Institute for information Technology which is a Private Agency on the condition that the post is temporary and the appointment would be for the period from 01.07.2018 to 31.07.2018 or till alternate arrangement is made or until further orders or till filling up of posts on regular recruitment. 3. The petitioner is before this Court challenging Annexure-A dated 01.10.2019 by which, 7th respondent herein is appointed as BTM and posted to the office of ADA, Koppal by the 6th respondent. The case of the petitioner is that she has not been relieved and states that without relieving her, respondent No. 6 could not have appointed respondent No. 7 for the post of BTM, in which place the petitioner was working. The post of BTM and Assistant Technical Manager (ATM for short) are attached to Raitha Samparka Kendras of Agricultural Department. 4. When the writ petition had come up for preliminary hearing on 10.12.2019, this Court had issued notice to the respondents and granted stay of Annexure-A till next date of hearing which was extended from time to time. Respondent No. 7 appeared through advocate and filed an application for vacating the interim order. When the application is listed for hearing on Interlocutory Application, with the consent of learned counsels for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No. 7, as well as learned Additional Government Advocate. 6. When the application is listed for hearing on Interlocutory Application, with the consent of learned counsels for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No. 7, as well as learned Additional Government Advocate. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that appointment of respondent No. 7 under Annexure-A dated 01.10.2019 when the petitioner is working in the said post is wholly illegal and arbitrary. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner is continued as BTM in the office of the ADA, Koppal. When such being the case, respondent No. 6 could not have posted 7th respondent in her place. It is his submission that the petitioner was on maternity leave and at that time, respondent No. 7 was posted and asked to discharge the duties as BTM at ADA, Koppal. After the maternity leave, when the petitioner approached respondent No. 6 seeking permission to continue as BTM at ADA, Koppal, the respondents are postponing to permit the petitioner to report to duty as BTM at ADA, Koppal. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 7 would submit that the petitioner has suppressed the material facts and has not approached this Court with clean hands. Learned counsel invites attention of this Court to Annexure-R6/notification dated 30.09.2019 wherein the 4th respondent had written a letter to 6th respondent awarding tender for supply of manpower. It also discloses that for the post of Block Technical Manager, the qualification prescribed is Post Graduation in Agriculture/Allied Sector with Compute Skill whereas for the post of ATM, qualification prescribed is Graduate/Post Graduate in Agriculture/Allied Sector. The petitioner is only a Graduate and she did not possess Post Graduation. It is further submitted that in pursuance of Annexure-R7, respondent No. 7 was appointed as BTM at ADA, Koppal by order dated 01.10.2019. In pursuance of the appointment order, respondent No. 7 reported to duty on 01.10.2019 as per Annexure-R8. Learned counsel for respondent No. 7 also points out that in pursuance of Annexure-R6, the petitioner was appointed as ATM by 6th respondent on 15.10.2019 as per Annexure-R9. In pursuance of Annexure-R9/appointment order, the petitioner reported to duty on 15.10.2019 and she is working as ATM at RSK/Alwandi. The petitioner has suppressed all these facts while approaching this Court. Hence, prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. In pursuance of Annexure-R9/appointment order, the petitioner reported to duty on 15.10.2019 and she is working as ATM at RSK/Alwandi. The petitioner has suppressed all these facts while approaching this Court. Hence, prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. Learned Additional Government Advocate while adopting the submission of the counsel for respondent No. 7 submits that the writ would not be maintainable as the appointment in question is made by Respondent No. 6 which is a private agency and not Government agency. 9. Annexure-A dated 01.10.2019 appointment of respondent No. 7 as BTM at ADA, Koppal is in pursuance of the award of tender to respondent No. 6 for supply of technical persons to 4th respondent-office. Annexure-R6 would indicate that the post of BTM requires qualification of Post Graduation in Agriculture/Allied Sector with Computer Skill. Respondent No. 7 who possesses qualification of Post Graduation in Agriculture and also had Computer Skill was appointed as BTM and was posted to ADA Koppal. Earlier, in pursuance of Annexure-D dated 01.07.2018, the petitioner was working as BTM and her appointment was for the period from 01.07.2018 to 31.07.2018. She had applied for the post of ATM in pursuance of Annexure-R6 which is also produced by the petitioner as Annexure-E to the writ petition. With respect to her application for the said post, she was appointed as ATM at RSK, Alavandi, as per the order dated 15.10.2019 Annexure-R9. In pursuance of the said order of appointment, the petitioner reported to duty on 15.10.2019 as per Annexure-R10. These facts are suppressed by the petitioner while filing the writ petition. 10. After having accepted the appointment as ATM under order dated 15.10.2019 issued by respondent No. 6, the petitioner could not have challenged Annexure-A, the appointment of respondent No. 7 as BTM to ADA, Koppal. Moreover, the petitioner is not qualified to hold the post of BTM since she is only a B.Sc.(Agricultural) Degree Holder. The post of BTM as per Annexure-E requires qualification of Post-Graduation. Thus, without going into the contention of the learned Additional Government Advocate as to whether the writ is maintainable or not, the writ petition is dismissed since the petitioner is not qualified to hold the post of BTM and she could not have challenged the appointment of respondent No. 7 as per Annexure-A as BTM, suppressing the fact that the petitioner was appointed as ATM. In view of dismissal of the writ petition, I.A. No. 1/2020 would not survive for consideration. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1/2020 is rejected.