IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. DEVDAS WRIT PETITION No.34514 OF 2018 (S - KAT) BETWEEN:
Mallanagowda Basanagowda Patil Aged about 48 years, Door No.3509, Heena Mansion, 3rd Main, MCC ‘B’ Block, Davanagere – 577 004. ... Petitioner (By Sri.M.R.Hiremathad M.R, Advocate) AND:
The State of Karnataka Represented by its Deputy Secretary Department of Health and Family Welfare (Services) Government of Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru – 560 001. ... Respondent (By Sri.Tharanath Poojary, AGA) This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 28.02.2018, passed in Application No.708/2016 by the Hon’ble Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru at Annexure-B and etc.
This petition coming on for preliminary hearing this day, DEVDAS J., made the following:
ORDER Learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to take notice for respondent.
2. The petitioner was initially appointed as Dental Medical Officer on probationary basis vide OM dated 26.08.2000 under rural weightage quota. Pursuant to the decision in the case of Basavaraj Nagoor V/s State of Karnataka reported in ILR 1999 KAR 1814 wherein, this Court has held that selection and appointment on the basis of rural weightage is ultra vires the Constitution of India and same having been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, by order dated 02.07.2003 issued by Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, all the candidates who secured appointment on the basis of rural weightage has to be discharged. The petitioner herein was discharged from the service on 17.12.2003. However, subsequently, the State Government proposed to appoint all such candidates who were discharged on the basis of rural weightage, on contract basis vide order dated 30.12.2003. The petitioner did not make himself available for appointment. Further, by special rules, the State Government sought to reappoint all such candidates on regular basis by issuing GO dated 14.07.2005, there again the petitioner did not make himself available for appointment. The petitioner filed an application before the Karnataka Adminstrative Tribunal in the year 2013. In the meanwhile, since the petitioner had made a representation to the State Government to consider his appointment, by a communication dated 07.01.2015, the State Government informed the petitioner that his representation was considered and rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner once again approached the Tribunal by filing Application No.708/2016. The said application was dismissed by order dated 28.02.2018. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appointment made by the State Government on contract basis and thereafter, vide GO dated 14.07.2005 was not communicated to the petitioner. Therefore, he was unable to accept the appointment and take charge. The learned counsel however submits that the petitioner will not claim any monetary benefits and it would be sufficient if the State Government appoints him at this stage because the petitioner is overaged and will not be able to secure any appointment.
4. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that since appointments were sought to be made in the year 2005, at this belated stage it would not be permissible to accept the contention made by the petitioner.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the writ papers.
6. The petitioner very well knows that he has approached the State Government at a very belated stage. The State Government itself communicated to the petitioner in the year 2005 that it would not be possible to accept his representation. After communication was issued in the year 2005, the petitioner approached the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in the year 2016, after lapse of more than 11 years. This petition was filed on 07.08.2018. In view of the enormous delay and lapse, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. It is not possible to grant the prayer made by the petitioner at this belated stage. We endorse the view of the Tribunal that the laws serve the vigilant, not those who sleep. Therefore, the petition stands dismissed.
Learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance within a period of six weeks.
SD/- JUDGE SD/- JUDGE UN