Writ Petition No. 9308 of 2024 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:23437 WP No. 9308 of 2024 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9308 OF 2024 (S-RES) BETWEEN: LALITHA BAI D/O SOMALYA NAIK AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS KANNADA ASSISTANT TEACHER MRB HIGH SCHOOL HARIHAR – 577601 (BY SRI. K SREEDHAR., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT PRIMARY AND HIGHER SECONDARY M S BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560001. …PETITIONER Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA 2. THE DIRECTOR HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION BENGALURU - 560001. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION P J EXTESNION NIJALINGAPPA LAYOUT DAVANGERE - 577004. 4. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT HARIHARA -577601 DAVANGERE DISTRICT. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:23437 WP No. 9308 of 2024 HC-KAR
Legal Reasoning
5. SRI JAGADGURU PANCHACHARYA VISWADHARMA VIDYAPEETHA P B ROAD, HARIHAR - 577601 REP BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT. (BY SRI. B J ESWARAPPA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE COSNTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH BY WRIT OF CERTIORARI IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO. ANU-1/KAAPRO.SHA.NYA. PRA /03/22-23302411 DATED 24.11.23 VIDE ANNEXURE-Z1 ISSUED BY THE DDPI, DAVANAGERE, 3RD RESPONDENT AS THE SAME ARE ILLEGAL ARBITRARY AND UNSUSTAINABLE AND ETC. THE THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the endorsement dated 24.11.2023 vide Annexure-Z1, issued by the third respondent, whereby the proposal of the Management for approval of the appointment of the petitioner as Kannada Assistant Teacher was returned. 2. The petitioner was working as an Assistant Teacher in M.R.B. High School, Harihara, from 2017. She has been - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:23437 WP No. 9308 of 2024 HC-KAR appointed by the Management by order dated 25.09.2017 vide Annexure-D, after following due procedure of law. The Management has sent a proposal of the appointment of the petitioner for approval to the Department. By Communication, dated 12.01.2021, the proposal has been sent back. That has been challenged before this Court in W.P.No.11899/2022. This Court, by order dated 04.01.2023 passed the following order: “4. The petitioner's apprehension, with the concerned officers not assigning reasons while returning the proposal for the approval of her appointment, is that the approval is not accorded because she was selected before she completed 29 years of age. In this regard this Court must refer to the material provisions of Rule 6 of the Karnataka State Civil Services (Unfilled Vacancies reserved for the persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes] [Special Recruitment) Rules, 2001 which reads as under: "6. List of Selected Candidates: (1) The Selecting Authority shall, from among the candidates who have applied in pursuance to the publication inviting applications under rule 5 and who have attained the age of 29 years but not attained the age of 40 years, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:23437 WP No. 9308 of 2024 HC-KAR for each list of Candidates prepare a category of posts in the order of merit on the basis of percentage of total marks secured in the qualifying examination and taking into consideration the reservation for women, physically ex-servicemen, handicapped and project displaced persons in accordance, with the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) rules, 1977 and the rural candidates in accordance with the Karnataka Reservation of appointments or posts (in the Civil Services of the State for Rural Candidates) Act, 2000. If however, sufficient number of candidates, who have attained the age of 29 years but not attained the age of 40 years are not available, the candidates, who have attained the age of 18 years but not attained the age of 29 years shall also be included in the select list in accordance with the provisions specified above to the extent of such insufficient number." The underline is by this Court 5. This Court is of the considered view that the fourth respondent the management must submit a fresh proposal indicating whether the petitioner was selected notwithstanding her age as of the relevant date because there was no candidate in the age group 29-40. If such proposal is forwarded the same must be considered by the concerned in the light of the aforesaid Rule within a time frame. Hence, the following - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:23437 WP No. 9308 of 2024 HC-KAR
Decision
ORDER The petition is allowed in part quashing the impugned communications dated 12.01.2021 and 03.02.2021 [Annexure T & U) directing the fourth respondent (the management) to submit a fresh proposal for approval of the petitioner's appointment indicating whether the petitioner was selected because there was no applicant in the age group 29-40. The fourth respondent shall send such proposal within a period of four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, and if such proposal is sent, the second and the third respondents shall consider the same within an outer limit of six [6] weeks from the date of receipt of such proposal.” 3. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the Management sent the proposal on 05.09.2023 vide Annexure-Z. Once again the proposal has been returned to the Management, by the impugned endorsement dated 24.11.2023. The specific direction issued by this Court to the Management was, whether the petitioner was selected because there was no applicant in the age-group of 29-40 years. When the proposal dated 05.09.2023 vide - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:23437 WP No. 9308 of 2024 HC-KAR Annexure-J, the Management has explained, there are two persons in the age-group of 29-40, i.e., one Rudra Naik and Vijayalakshmi. Rudra Naik has refused to accept the appointment on the ground that he was working in some other Institution. In respect of Vijayalakshmi is concerned, she was not residing in the address, which is made available to the Management, in the application. Except these two, there are no other candidates available in the age-group of 29-40. As per Rule 6 of Rules 2021, if no candidate is available between the age-group of 29-40, those who attained the age of 18 and has not attained the age of 29 shall be included in the list. The Management has given the details of the candidates who are available in the age-group of 18-29. There are four candidates available. The petitioner has secured the highest percentage other than the other candidates. Therefore, the petitioner’s name has been recommended. The specific directions given by this Court in the earlier writ petition is directing the fourth respondent to send the said proposal - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:23437 WP No. 9308 of 2024 HC-KAR within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. Therefore, if the proposal is sent, to reconsider the same within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of such proposal. 4. Pursuant to the said order passed by this Court, the proposal dated 05.09.2023 vide Annexure-Z has been sent to the second respondent. Again, by the impugned endorsement, proposal has been returned on the very same ground. In fact, the Management has sent the proposal giving all the details as directed by this Court in the earlier writ petition. The impugned order is passed without application of mind. Hence, it requires to be set aside. 5. Accordingly, the following order is passed: (i) (ii) The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 24.11.2023 vide Annexure-Z1 passed by third respondent is quashed. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:23437 WP No. 9308 of 2024 HC-KAR (iii) The second respondent is directed to reconsider the proposal sent by the sixth respondent – Management, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE CM LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 50