IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NOs.43484-43487 OF 2015 (S-PRO) Between:
1. D. Balakrishna, S/o. Doddanna, Aged about 55 years, Currently working as Assistant Master (Kannada Subject), BBMP Girl’s High School, Srirampura, Bengaluru-21.
2. K. Jayalakshmi, W/o B.V. Srinivasa, Aged about 56 years, Currently working as Assistant Master (Kannada Subject), BBMP PU College, 1st Cross, Magadi Road, Bengaluru-560 023.
3. K. Rajini, W/o R. Sridharan, Aged about 55 years, Currently working as Assistant Mistress (English Subject) BBMP Girl’s High School, Dispensary Road, Shivajinagar, Bengaluru-560 001.
4. Uma T.G, W/o M.K. Ramesh, Aged about 52 years, Currently working as Assistant Mistress (English Subject) BBMP Girl’s High School, Jogupalya, Halasuru, Bengaluru-560 008. ... Petitioners (By Sri. Srinivas, Adv.) And:
1. The Commissioner, Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, N.R.Square, Bengaluru-560 001.
2. The Deputy Commissioner (Admin), Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, N.R.Square, Bengaluru-560 001.
3. Sri. K.Nagarajaiah, S/o Not Known to these Petitioners, Aged about 55 years, Presently working as Kannada Lecturer, CJC Srirampuram, Bengaluru-560 021. ... Respondents (By Sri. Kashinath.J.D, Adv., for R3 Sri. B.S.Gautham, Adv., for R1 & R2) These WPs are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dtd.09.09.2015 issued by the R-2 vide Annex-F to the W.P. in so far promoting the R-3 to the post of Kannada Lecturer and direct the R-1 & 2 to promote these petitioners as Kannada and English lecturer.
These Writ Petitions coming on for Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER The petitioners are working as Assistant Masters in various schools run by the respondent-Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (for short hereinafter referred to as “Corporation”). While petitioners No. 1 and 2 are teachers in Kannada subject, petitioners No.3 and 4 are teachers in English subjects. The respondent-Corporation is also running various Pre-University Colleges in Bengaluru. The teaching staff are governed by the C & R Rules framed by the Corporation.
2. According to the petitioners, there are 128 sanctioned posts for lecturers, out of which 24 posts were lying vacant. In the year 2015, amongst 24 vacant posts, three posts of Kannada lecturers and two of English lecturers had fallen vacant and the respondent authorities constituted a Departmental Promotion Committee(for brevity hereinafter referred to as ‘DPC’) for consideration of promotion for the Assistant Masters, who were eligible to be promoted to the post of lecturers. As per the seniority list prepared by the BBMP, petitioners No.1 and 2 are at serial nos. 79 and 106, while respondent No.3 is at sl.No.121. Petitioners No.3 and 4, who aspire for promotion as English lecturers, are found at sl.Nos.69 and 80 respectively.
3. The DPC held its Meeting on 20.07.2015 and prepared eligibility list, where all the four petitioners and third respondent are found to be eligible. But subsequently, another meeting seems to have been held on 24.07.2015 and thereafter, eligibility list was announced, whereby the petitioners are declared as not eligible for promotion. The reason given by the DPC is that the petitioners, who aspire for being promoted as Kannada lecturers had not taken Kannada as optional subject during Degree Course, though they had secured a Masters degree in Kannada. Similarly, in the case of the petitioners No.3 and 4, it is said that they had not taken English as optional subject during Degree Course.
4. Pursuant to the resolution passed by the DPC on 24.07.2015, order dated 09.09.2015 came to be issued, whereby the third respondent was promoted as lecturer in Kannada. Being aggrieved, petitioners are before this Court seeking to quash order dated 09.09.2015 at Annexure-F.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the C & R Regulations of the respondent-Corporation, which is known as the City of Bangalore Municipal Corporation Services (General) Cadre and Recruitment Regulation, 1971, provides that for an employee to be promoted as lecturer from the cadre of Assistant Masters, the prescription is Masters degree of a recognized University or equivalent qualification in the concerned subject, with a minimum three years teaching experience as High School teachers.
6. Learned counsel submits that there are the only requirement and the petitioners satisfied all the requirements as contemplated in the Regulation. Learned counsel further submits that the rejection of the candidature of the petitioners for promotion on the ground that they had not taken the subject as optional subject during the Degree Course is not as per the requirement of the Regulations.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation would submit that other than the observations of the DPC as canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it has also been noticed by the DPC that the petitioners have been working as Art teachers and were not teaching the subjects for which they are seeking promotion i.e., Kannada or English. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 adds to the submission of learned counsel for the Corporation that the Karnataka General Services (Pre Universities Education) (Recruitment) Rules, 2013 would prescribe Masters Degree in second class with not less than 55% of marks in the concerned subject and in any of the optional subjects studied at Degree levels. In the light of the said provisions,it is submitted that the petitioners are not eligible and therefore rejection made by the DPC and the order passed by the respondent-Corporation is in accordance with law.
8. Heard learned counsels and perused the writ papers.
The submissions of the learned counsels for the Corporation and third respondent cannot be accepted for the reason that the Pre University Education Rules are not applicable to the petitioners and the third respondent, while they are governed by separate Regulation as stated above.
9. On a plain reading of the requirement under the Regulation, the petitioners fulfilled the requirement of having Masters degree from a recognized university in the concerned subjects with a minimum three years teaching experience as High School teachers. Admittedly, all the petitioners have been teaching in the schools run by the Corporation. They have a minimum experience of three years and they held Masters Degree from recognized University, for the concerned subjects.
Therefore, the petitioners fulfill all the requirements under the Regulation and are eligible for promotion to the cadre of lecturer from the cadre of Assistant Masters.
10. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation has furnished details of the vacancies available as on today. Even according to the Corporation, three posts of Kannada lecturers are vacant, while four posts of English are vacant in the P.U Colleges run by the respondent-Corporation. There is no need to disturb the promotion already given to the third respondent.
11. In the light of the above, the petitions are required to be allowed and are accordingly allowed. Since the order dated 09.09.2015 provides for promotion of third respondent and two other candidates whose promotions has not been questioned, this Court is of the opinion that there is no need to quash the impugned order dated 09.09.2015. However, the resolution/proceedings drawn/passed by the DPC on 24.07.2015 at Annexure-E is quashed and set aside to the extent of the petitioners herein.
12. In the light of the observations made herein, the respondent-Corporation is directed to reconsider the promotion of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Sd/- JUDGE Psg*