IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R. DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO.44313 OF 2017 (S-RES) BETWEEN BARKUR EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY (R) UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT 576210. BY ITS SECRETARY, B. SEETHARAM SHETTY (BY SRI PRASAD HEGDE K B, ADVOCATE) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, (PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION), M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE 560001.
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 2. DIRECTOR PRE UNIVERSITY BOARD, MALLESHWARAM 18TH CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD, BANGALORE 560012 3. JOINT DIRECTOR PRE UNIVERSITY BOARD, MALLESHWARAM 18TH CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD, BANGALORE 560012 ... PETITIONER 4. DEPUTY DIRECTOR P. U EDUCATION, RAJATADRI, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT 576101 5. VIRUPAKASHA N SUNKAD AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS NATIONAL P U COLLEGE, BARKUR, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT 576210 6. KOTRASWAMY U S/O. LATE. GURUBASAPPA U, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, PRINCIPAL (INCHARGE), NATIONAL PU COLLEGE BARKUR, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT 576210 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SUBRAMANYA BHAT M, ADVOCATE FOR R5 SRI SRIDHAR N HEGDE, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4 SRI R S RAVI, ADVOCATE FOR R6) THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD:13.9.2017 PASSED BY R-1, ORDER DTD:14.7.2017 MADE IN APPEAL NO.4/2015 PASSED BY R-2 AND ORDER DTD:3.3.2014 PASSED BY R-3 AS PER ANNEXURE-A, B, C RESPECTIVELY AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
Though the matter is coming up for ‘Hearing on Interlocutory Application’, with the consent of the learned counsels on both the sides the matter is heard and disposed of finally.
2. The petitioner Institution is before this Court calling in question the orders dated 03.03.2014 passed by the Joint Director, Pre- University Board, order dated 14.07.2017 passed by the Director of Pre-University Board and order dated 13.09.2017 passed by the State Government. The impugned orders were passed at the instance of the petitioner, who had recommended the appointment of the respondent No.6 for being appointed as the principal of the petitioner institution. Since the proposal of the petitioner was rejected by the Joint Director, the petitioner approached the Director of Pre-University Board questioning the order passed by the Joint Director. At that stage, respondent No.5 herein impleaded himself before the Director of Pre-University Board in the dispute raised by the petitioner herein. On hearing the parties, the Director of Pre-University Board upheld the order passed by the Joint Director. When the matter was taken up before the State Government, there too the petitioner was unsuccessful.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent No.5 submits that the respondent No.5 is left with only one year before he attains the age of superannuation and therefore submits that directions be issued to the petitioner to forward the recommendation in accordance with law.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.6 also agrees that the petitioner may send a proposal to the competent authority to appoint a person as the principal in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also agree that the institution is supposed to recommend the senior most lecturer to be appointed as the principal of the institution.
5. In the light of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the matter can be disposed of by issuing a direction to the petitioner to send a proposal to the competent authority recommending the senior most lecturer to be appointed as principal. The learned counsel would only request that the petitioner also be granted liberty to make a note in the recommendation that if the institution is not willing to recommend the senior most lecturer, the institution should be given liberty to put up the note citing reasons as to why the senior most is not recommended and thereafter the competent authority may pass orders on the recommendation of the petitioner. Reserving such liberty to the petitioner, this petition is disposed of. The petitioner institution is directed to send the recommendation to the competent authority within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
6. In view of the disposal of the main matter, I.A.No.1/19 does not survive for consideration and is accordingly rejected.
KLY/ SD/- JUDGE