BANGALORE – 560001 v. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY

Sri. K PRABHAKAR S/O. LATE H KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS WORKING AS SECOND DIVISIONAL CLERK ACHARYA PATASHALA COLLEGE, N R COLONY BANGALORE. (By Sri. R V SRINIVASA REDDY, ADV.) AND : -------

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION M S BUILDING BANGALORE – 560001. … PETITIONER 2

THE COMMISSIONER FOR COLLEGIATE EDUCATION KALIDASA MARG BANGALORE – 560009. THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION KALIDASA MARG BANGALORE – 560009. THE MANAGEMENT OF ACHARYA PATASHALA EDUCATION TRUST ® N R COLONY BANGALORE REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. … RESPONDENTS (By Sri. B C PRABHAKAR, ADV., FOR R-4 Sri. RAGHAVENDRA G GAYATHRI, HCGP, FORR-1 TO 3) --- THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE LETTER DATED 23.09.2010 AND ETC. THIS WRIT FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING B GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING; COMING ON PETITION 3

O R D E R In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 19.10.2010 and the order dated 23.09.2010 passed by the Government.

The petitioner joined the fourth respondent educational institution as a Second Divisional Clerk on 20.08.1981. Subsequently in the year 1988 the petitioner was promoted as First Divisional Clerk. Subsequently the promotion of the petitioner came to be approved by the Government on 20.11.1988. One Sri. H.S. Manjunath, being aggrieved by the promotion of petitioner filed an appeal before the Educational Appellate Tribunal in M.A. (EAT) No. 71/1988. On contest the Tribunal vide judgment dated

19.03.1994 set aside the promotion given to the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner approached this Court in W.P. No. 26251/1998. This Court vide order dated 17.04.2001 dismissed the writ petition and confirmed the judgment of the Tribunal. Further the petitioner carried the matter before the Division Bench in W.A. No. 4 3236/2001 and the same came to be dismissed vide order dated

22.01.2002. The Division Bench while dismissing the appeal observed as under: “However, this dismissal will not preclude the authority concerned to consider roster system if sufficient posts are available, in accordance with law.”

Thereafter respondent No. 4 management again sent a proposal for approval of promotion given to the petitioner with effect from 1988. Under the impugned order the respondents refused to approve the promotion on the ground that as per the Government Order dated 12.10.2002 there is a bar for approval of promotions on account of stringent financial conditions. In the impugned order it is stated that the Government has no objection for promoting the petitioner in the event of the management bearing the monetary consequences. Hence, this writ petition.

4. Heard arguments on both the side and perused the entire writ papers. 5

The promotion of the petitioner as First Divisional Clerk in the year 1988 was reversed by the Tribunal and confirmed by this Court on the ground that a single post cannot be promoted under reserve quota. This finding of the Tribunal and this Court had become final. Therefore the promotion given to the petitioner in the year 1988 is no more on record. Subsequent to the disposal of writ appeal on 22.01.2002 if there are more than one vacancy then the claim of petitioner for promotion can be considered. But in the instant case respondent No.4 management again sent the proposal to the Government to approve the promotion of petitioner with effect from 1988. Under the impugned order the proposal sent by respondent No. 4 is rightly rejected. I find no justifiable ground to interfere with the same. Accordingly the writ petition is hereby dismissed. LRS. Sd/- JUDGE.