IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2018 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY WRIT PETITION Nos.11678-11700/2013 (S-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION Nos.27555- 27566/2014 (S-RES) WRIT PETITION Nos.21036- 21055/2015 (S-RES) In W.P. Nos.11678-11700/2013 BETWEEN:
1. N K RAVI SHANKAR S/O KALAIAH.T.
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, WORKING AS LECTURER, SREEGANDHADA KAVAL P.U. COLLEGE, MAGADI ROAD, KOTTIGEPALYA, BANGALORE – 91, R/O 284/A, 37TH A CROSS, JAYANAGAR, 8TH BLOCK, NEAR JSS COLLEGE, BANGALORE – 82 2. VIVEKANAND NARAYAN NAIK S/O NARAYAN NAIK, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, WORKING AS LECTURER, SHIVAJI COMPOSITE JUNIOR COLLEGE, CHITTAKOLE, KARWAR, R/O 738/1, VINAYAKA VIHAR, KENCHA ROAD, KARWARA, UTTARA KANNADA - 581 301 3. SRINIVAS T S/O THIMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, WORKING AS WORKER TEACHER SKJC COLLEGE,MMAGADI ROAD, KOTTIGEPALYA, BANGALORE-91 R/O NO. 19, 5TH CROSS, 3RD MAIN, KOTTIGEPALYA, BANGALORE - 91 4. NAGARAJA D S S/O SHANKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS WORKING AS LECTURER, BASAVESHWARA P U COLLEGE, TIPTUR, TUMKUR DISTRICT, R/O RAMANNA BUILDING, 2ND CROSS, VIDYA NAGAR, HASSAN CIRCLE, TIPTUR, TUMKUR DISTRICT 5. SHAILESH J RAO B S/O LATE JANAKINATH RAO, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, WORKING AS WORKER TEACHER, VIVEKANANDA POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE, NEHRU NAGAR, PUTTUR- 574 201 R/O NO. 319, BARKAST COMPOUND BEHIND GOVT, HOSPITAL THENKILA, PUTTUT, KASABA, PUTTUR- 574 201 6. MALLIKARJUNA SWAMY M S/O K MALLANNA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, WORKING AS LECTURER, S S P U COLLEGE, BELAKAVADI, MALAVALLI, MANDYA R/O MADAVADI BELAKAVADI POST, T N PURA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT- 571 417 7. NARAYANA BANNINTHAYA S/O K V BANNINTHAYA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, WORKING AS LECTURER, VIVEKANANDA POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE, NEHRU NAGAR, PUTTUR- 574 201 R/O PUNACHA HOUSE POST, PUNACHA,BANTWAL TALUK, SOUTH CANARA- 574 243 8. RAMA PRASADA K S/O ISHWARA BHAT K AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, WORKING AS LECTURER, VIVEKANANDA POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE, NEHRU NAGAR, PUTTUR- 574 201 R/O VADWA HOUSE, ALIKE POST, BANTWAL TALUK, SOUTH CANARA – 574 235 9. PRABHAKARA BALLAL K S/O MADHAVA BALLAL K AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, WORKING AS LECTURER, VIVEKANANDA POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE, NEHRU NAGAR, PUTTUR- 574 201 R/O I-342, KSK COMPOUND, NEHRU NAGAR BANTWAL TALUK, SOUTH CANARA- 574 203 10. BASAVARAJA K S/O KARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, WORKING AS LECTURER, BES P U COLLEGE, JAYANAGAR, 4TH BLOCK, BANGALORE-11 R/O 1471, PILLAGANAHALLY, B G ROAD, GOTTIGERE POST, BANGALORE-83 11. NARAYANA GOWDA A S S/O SINGRI GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, WORKING AS WORKER TEACHER, BES P U COLLEGE, JAYANAGAR 4TH BLOCK, BANGALORE-11 R/O 82 SARAKKI VILLAGE, L P NAGRA, 1ST PHASE, SUBBAMMA CIRCLE, BANGALORE-78 12. RAMAMURTHY C S S/O LATE SINGACHAR, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, WORKING AS LECTURER, SARWAJANIKA P U COLLEGE, CHANNAPATNA, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, R/O 128, YELEKERI, CHANNAPATNA, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT 13. YEKANTHAPPA M R S/O M S RAMALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, WORKING AS LECTURER, S.C.K.S. P U COLLEGE, MADHURE POST, HOSADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT- 577527 R/O MADHURE POST, HOSADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT- 577527 14. YOGAMURTHY G S/O G T JARUGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, WORKING AS LECTURER, S.G.R. P U COLLEGE, KOTE, HOSADURGA TOWN, CHITRADURGA R/O BAGUR POST, HOSADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DIST-577 515 15. MARUTHI B H S/O HANUMANTHAPPA B K AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, WORKING AS LECTURER, S.C.K.S. P U COLLEGE, MADHURE POST, HOSADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT- 577 527 R/O SREE MARUTHI NIVASA, VINAYAKA EXTENSION, HOSADURGA, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT- 577 527 16. NAGABHUSHANA S/O ADINARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, WORKING AS LECTURER, S.L.K.H.R. P U COLLEGE, NARAYANAPURA CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT R/O HARIYABBE POST, HIRIYUR TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT- 577 546 17. SADASHIVA K S S/O SHANKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, WORKING AS LECTURER, S.A.P P U COLLEGE, THALYA, HOLALKRE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT- 577 527 R/O THALYA ,HOLALKRE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT- 577 527 18. MALLIKA K P S/O K M PURADAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, WORKING AS LECTURER, B.L.R. P U COLLEGE, SIRIGERE, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT- 577 541 R/O KAGGI VILLAGE, MUGALIHALLI POST, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 213 19. PUTTAPPA G S/O GADIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, WORKING AS LECTURER, S.M.C P U COLLEGE, MADADAKERE POST, HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT- 577 527 R/O GADIYANAPPANAHATTY, MADADAKERE POST, HOSADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT- 577 527 20. SRINIVASA K S/O LATE KESHAVAN K AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, WORKING AS LECTURER, S.M.C P U COLLEGE, MADADAKERE POST, HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT- 577 527 R/O LAVANYA NILAYA, KALLESWARA BADAVANE HOSADURGA- 577 527 21. PUSHPA S AIGAL W/O RAJESH R NAIK, AGE: 42 YEARS, WORKING AS LECTURER B.G.V.S. COLLEGE, SADASHIVGUD, KARWAR, R/T NO.4,"SAI LEELA" GAONGRI VILLAGE, MAJALI, KARWAR - 581 345 22. SMITHA V D/O V MANAPPA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, WORKING AS COMPUTER LECTURER, VIVEKANANDA P U COLLEGE, PUTTUR - 574 201 R/O GANESH KRIPA, DEVASYA BAIL, VITTAL, SOUTH CANARA- 574 203 23. SUMANA K W/O CHANDASHEKARA NAIRY, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, WORKING AS COMPUTER TECHNICAL LECTURER, NATIONAL P U COLLEGE, BARKUR, UDUPI R/O SUPRATA AGRAHAR CHANTHAR VILLAGE, BRAHNAVAR POST, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 210 ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI.RANGANATHA S JOIS , ADV.) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY (PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION) DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, M S BUILDING, BANGALORE – 560 001 2. THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS AND LEGISLATION, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE- 560 001 3. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF VOCATIONAL EDUCATION, 3RD FLOOR, MALLESWARAM, 18TH CROSS, BANGALORE – 12 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDL. AG FOR SRI.S.V.GIRIKUMAR, AGA FOR R1 TO 3) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE CLAIM OF THE PETITIONERS FOR ABSORPTIONS WITH REFERENCE TO THEIR QUALIFICATION & TO TREAT THEM ON PAR WITH THE GOVT. COLLEGE LECTURER OF JOC ABSORBED UNDER [KARNATAKA ACT NO.22/11] & TO GIVE THEM POSTING AS LECTURERS OR ANY OTHER TECHNICAL POSTS COMMENSURATE WITH THEIR QUALIFICATION & FINALISE THE PROCESS OF ABSORPTION AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS POSSIBLE.
IN W.P. Nos.27555- 27566/2014 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
1. DHARANESH , B S/O BERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O SRIGONDANAHALLY D.T. VITTY POST, HOSADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 577 521 2. R.R. CHANNABASAVAIAH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O RAMEGOWDA, R/O RAMAGHATTA PURADAKATTE POST, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 117 3. YOGEESHA RAO T D S/O DAMODHARA RAO T AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O SHIVAKRUPA, CHIGURUPADE, MIYAPADAVA POST MUNESHWARA – 671 323 4. NINGARAJA R T AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O THIMAPPA, R/O POORNIMA NILAYA, VENKATESHWARA NAGAR, KADUR TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT 5. PRAKASH B.S S/O SESHADRI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O NO.875, NEW EXTENSION, BELAKAVADI, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 417 6. NANJEGOWDA M S/O MARULAIAH K MALLANNA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O LAXMIPURA, NIRUVAGAL POST, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 119 7. MARULASIDDAPPA M AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O MUNIYAPPA, R/O SRI CHANNKESA NILAYA, 3RD CROSS, 4TH MAIN, TIPTUR, TUMKUR DISTRICT 57212 8. KANTHARAJU H AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O HORAKERANGAPPA, R/O ARALIKEREPALYA, DHARMAPURA POST, HIRIYUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 577 546 9. THIPPESWAMY G AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O G. GOVINDAPPA, R/O MALLADIHAALI, HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 577 548 10. KESHAVAMURTHY J AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O JAGANNATH T H R/O THORE BEERANAHALLI, BELEGERE POST, CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 577 549 11. LAKSHMIKANTHA H S/O LATE G. HALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/A NEAR BAZZAR POST OFFICE, MAIN ROAD, SIRA, TUMKUR – 572 137 12. PUTTASWAMY B S/O G. KUNTANNA JAVAREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/A NEAR SKMM PU COLLEGE, N.H-4, SIRA, TUMKUR – 572 137 ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI.V N MADHAVA REDDY, ADV. ) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY (PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION) DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, M S BUILDING, BANGALORE – 560 001 2. THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS AND LEGISLATION, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE- 560 001 3. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF VOCATIONAL EDUCATION, 3RD FLOOR, MALLESWARAM, 18TH CROSS, BANGALORE – 12 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDL. AG FOR SRI.S.V.GIRIKUMAR, AGA FOR R1 TO 3) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE CLAIM OF THE PETITIONERS FOR ABSORPTIONS WITH REFERENCE TO THEIR QUALIFICATION & TO TREAT THEM ON PAR WITH THE GOVT. COLLEGE LECTURER OF JOC ABSORBED UNDER [KARNATAKA ACT NO.22/11] & TO GIVE THEM POSTING AS LECTURERS OR ANY OTHER TECHNICAL POSTS COMMENSURATE WITH THEIR QUALIFICATION & FINALISE THE PROCESS OF ABSORPTION AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS POSSIBLE.
IN W.P.Nos.21036- 21055/2015 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
1. DEVARAJU S/O CHELUVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O TALAGAVADI, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 419 2. RUDRANNA GONEPPA GULAGULI S/O GONEPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O PLAT NO.33/34, SHRUE PRUNA, ADITYA NAGAR, NEAR ANJUMAN COLLEGE, GADAG – 582 103 3. SHIVANANDA BASAVANNEPPA ANGADI S/O BASAVANNEPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/A KADARAGERI STREET, PATABANA, LAXMESHWAR, GADAG – 582 116 4. SHANMUKHAPPA FAKEERAPPA NILNGAL S/O FAKEERAPPA SANGAPPA NILNGAL, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/A VAKKALAGERI STREET, GADAG – 582 101 5. DAYANAND G DESAI S/O GOVINDA DESAI, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/A NEW TOWNSHIP, JOIDA TALUK, KARWAR, NORTH KANNADA – 581 186 6. SHARANAPPA HADAPAD S/O GIRIMALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/A INGALAGERE HOUSE, YARAGATTI ROAD, HULKUNDA, RAMADURGA TALUK, BELAGAVI – 591 119 7. BASAVARAJA BIRADAR S/O HANUMANTRAY BIRADAR, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/A NO-7 BASAVANAGAR, TALIKOTI, BIJAPUR DISTRICT – 586 214 8. BALAJI R KULKARNI S/O RAGHUNATH B KULKARNI, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/A C/O G.B PATIL KULKARNI, MANJUNATHA P.W.D.MALAMADDI, DHARWAD – 580 003 9. KIRAN MARUTI SAMAJI S/O MARUTHI SAMAJI, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/A NO.172/B,MARGAI GALLI, HALAGA TALUK, BELGAUM – 590 020 10. BALAPPA MAHALINGAPPA MAJAGANNAVAR S/O MAHALINGAPPA MAJAGANNAVAR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/A NO.468, RENUKA GALLI, NEAR YALLAMMA TEMPLE, SAMBRA, BELAGAVI TALUK, AND DISTRICT 591 124 11. SUBHAS NAGAPPA BENACHANMARDI S/O NAGAPPA BENACHAMARDI, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/A CHANNAMMA NAGAR, 1ST CROSS, BAILHONGAL BELAGAVI DISTRICT – 501 102 12. MURAGHENDRA ALLAMPRABHU GHATANATTI S/O ALLAMPRABHU GHATANATTI, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/A SHANTHINIKETAN COLONY, MAHALINGAPUR, MUDHOL TALUK, BAGALKOT DISTRICT – 587 312 13. KHALID AHEMAD M MUDHOL S/O MOHAMMAD QASIM MUDHOL, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/A PLAT-22, CHNDARPUR COLONY, IBRAHIMPUR, BIJAPUR – 585 101 14. ALTAF HUSSAIN B NAGATHAN S/O BASHIR AHEMAD NAGATHAN, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/A MALBORD GARDEN, NEAR BODI KAMAN, J.M ROAD, BIJAPUR – 585 101 15. AYUB KHADRI M MANAGOLI S/O MOLA HABIB MONAGOLI, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/A RAJPUT GALLI JUNCTION ROAD, BIJAPUR – 585 101 16. BAVASAB H PHANIBAND S/O HUSENSAB PHANIBAND, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/A NISAR MOHALLA, BEGAL ROAD, BIJAPUR – 585 101 17. MOHAMMED IQBAL A JAKATI S/O ABDUL GAFER JAKATI, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/A MIG 29, JALNAGAR, BIJAPUR – 585 101 18. N.V.LAXMESHWAR S/O VASUDEV LAXMESHWAR, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/A BANASHANKAR NILAYA, 2ND CROSS, VIDYANAGAR, RANEBENNUR TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT – 581 123 19. VEERABASANAGOUDA M PATIL S/O MUDUVEERAGOUDA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/A HANUMANAHALLI, MUDENUR POST, RANEBENNUR TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT – 581 123 20. HANUMANTHA NEELANAIK S/O. NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT SECTOR NO.14, FLAT NO.59/A, NAVANAGARA, BAGALKOTE – 587 103 ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI.RANGANATHA S JOIS, ADV.) And:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY (PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION) DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, M S BUILDING, BANGALORE – 560 001 2. THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS AND LEGISLATION, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001 3. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF VOCATIONAL EDUCATION, 3RD FLOOR, MALLESWARAM, 18TH CROSS, BANGALORE – 12 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDL. AG FOR SRI.S.V.GIRIKUMAR, AGA FOR R1 TO 3) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE CLAIM OF THE PETITIONERS FOR ABSORPTION WITH REFERENCE TO THEIR QUALIFICATION AND TO TREAT THEM ON PAR WITH THE GOVT. COLLEGE LECTURER OF JOC ABSORBED UNDER KARNATAKA ACT NO. 22 OF 2011 AND TO GIVE THEM POSTING AS LECTURERS OR ANY OTHER TECHNICAL POSTS COMMENSURATE WITHOUT THEIR QUALIFICATION AND FINALISE THE PROCESS OF ABSORPTION AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS POSSIBLE.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY AFTER HAVING HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 12.03.2018, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The Government of Karnataka had introduced Job-oriented Course (for brevity hereinafter referred to as ‘JOC’) at University level. The intention of the Government was that the students are not only educated but also be able to get employment on their own or to start their own avocation to earn their livelihood. The said scheme was in force for a considerable length of time. Thereafter, the JOC course dwindled substantially and the State Government has decided to abolish the course. The staff who were assigned the job of JOC became jobless and in order to rehabilitate them, an ordinance called “Karnataka Part-time Job Oriented Courses Employees (Absorption) Ordinance, 2011 dated 06th April 2011” was passed. The teaching staff of JOC were also holders of Degree/Diploma in Engineering and other technical subjects and have spent substantial part of their service in the said scheme and by coarse of time they became age-barred for any other appointment. Considering the above situation, the State has passed the said ordinance. The scheme of Ordinance is that the persons who were working in Government Colleges/Institutions have to be absorbed in some colleges/Institutions. In case of want of vacancies or exigencies, they have to be deputed to other departments of Government. To the teaching and non-teaching staff who are working in Government aided institutions, similar scheme was extended to them to absorb in the aided institutions in any suitable post according to their qualification. The action of the Government classifying the teaching and non-teaching staff at Government and the government aided institutions for the purpose of absorption according to the petitioners is arbitrary, ultra vires and violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners herein have been working as Lecturers of JOC under the Directorate of Vocational Education by orders dated 17th August 2010 and 22nd September 2010 as per Annexure-A and B. Third respondent-the Director of Department of Vocational Education posted these Petitioners to various pre-university colleges in the State of Karnataka. Since the decision has been taken to abolish the course, a meeting was held in order to take care of the petitioners, who are working in various Institutions and also were age-barred for the purpose of new appointments, under the Chairman-ship of the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka. The outcome of the meeting is that the Lecturers, who are working in the Institutions, in both Government and Government Aided Institutions as part-time lecturers, there shall be a Rules to be framed to that effect and accordingly, the Ordinance of 2011 dated 06th April 2011 came into force. The Ordinance defines an Employee for JOC as a person appointed under the orders referred therein working either in Government College or private aided colleges and appointed by the head of the college, i.e. the Principal. Section 3 of the Act provides that “their services are absorbed in the equivalent posts of Pre- University Colleges and if sufficient posts are not available in Junior Colleges, in view of the above, it is submitted that it is incumbent on the respondent Government to treat both, lecturers of JOC in Government and in aided private colleges, on par with the Government JOC Lecturers. The Act provides that the Lecturers who are working in Government Junior Colleges have to be absorbed in College/Institutions itself and in case if it is found excess, they have to be absorbed in any of the Government Departments. Whereas, the said policy is not made available to the Lecturers working in other than the Government Institutions. In this regard, information have been obtained from the Government that vacancies/posts are available in the Government Undertakings, viz. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Regional Transport Office and other units of the Government. When such being the case, the inaction on the part of the Government in not absorbing the Lecturers who are working in Government Aided private colleges is arbitrary and unconstitutional and the same is to be set-aside and direction is to be issued to the respondents to absorb the petitioners who are working in Government aided and private colleges into the Government owned departments. Hence, prayer is made by the petitioners for a direction to consider the petitioners on par with the lecturers who have been absorbed on the basis of the fact that they are working in Government Junior Colleges.
3. The Respondent filed statement of objections. It is contended therein that the action of the respondents classifying the lecturers who are working in Government colleges on one hand and the lecturers working in Government aided and private colleges on the other is not discriminatory and is a reasonable classification which the Government has rightly done and there is no violation of Articles 14 or 16(1) of the Constitution of India as is alleged. Upon the decision taken to abolish the JOC course, a Committee was appointed under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary of the Government of Karnataka and an effort was made to see that none of these JOC lecturerers to be sent out and a decision has been taken to rehabilitate them. The persons who are working in Government Institutions are entirely different from the persons who are working in Government aided or private institutions. Their appointing authority, nature of job, employer and employee relationship are altogether different though they might possess equal qualification. It is permissible for the State to make such classification which itself is not arbitrary and violation of equality class. The steps taken to absorb these petitioners, after the course has been abolished, is a policy decision taken by the Government in the larger interest. Due to various short-falls, the State Government realized that the utility of JOCs. was not up to the expected standard and hence the Courses have been closed down eventually after the threadbare discussions with the stakeholders. The classification of JOC lecturers as Private Aided and Government is strictly a policy matter envisaged according to the constitutional requirement with a humanitarian consideration and to facilitate re-deployment of JOC employees in the event of closure of the Courses. Hence, it is submitted that the petitions are devoid of merits and to be dismissed.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is a preamble mandate of the Constitution of India that there shall be equality from among the citizens of India. The meaning of ‘Equality’ is that a person shall not be discriminated on the basis of no criteria and there cannot be class legislation. Again in Article 14 of the Constitution, it is made clear that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or equal protection of law within the territory of India. Similar expression is found in Articles 15(1) and 16(1) of the Constitution. Equality is the bedrock of Constitution and no person, whether rich or poor, or on the basis of place of residence, etc. shall be discriminated or treated unequal or more equal. Article 14 of the Constitution envisages that equal protection, means the right to equal treatment in similar circumstances. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SRI KISHAN SINGH AND OTHERS v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1955 SC 795; and in the case of SOMA CHAKRAVARTHI v. STATE reported in AIR 2007 SC 2149 has held that equal protection means the right to equal treatment in equal circumstances both in privileges conferred and in the liabilities imposed.
5. In the case of TMA PAI FOUNDATION AND OTHERS v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS reported in (2002)8 SCC 481 in the course of judgment it has been held that Implicit in the concept of equality is the concept that persons who are in fact unequally circumstanced cannot be treated on par. The Constitution has itself provided for such classification in providing for special or group or class rights.
6. In ATYANT PICHHARA BARG CHHATRA SANGH AND ANOTHER v. JHARKHAND STATE VAISHYA FEDERATION AND OTHERS reported in 2006(6) SCC 718 at paragraph 21 of the judgment, it is observed that amalgamation of two classes of people for reservation would be unreasonable as two different classes are treated similarly which is in violation of mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution which is to treat similar similarly and to treat different differently. It is well-settled law to treat unequals as equals also violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
7. When an individual has got right, then it shall be the duty of the State not to discriminate, otherwise the right of a person gets infringed and ends up in violation of Articles 14 of the Constitution of India. But in circumstances, where privileges are conferred by State by way of policy decisions, etc. even then also the State should keep in mind the guidance of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments cited supra. Keeping in mind the above principles, if the same is examined the submission of the petitioner that both the petitioners who are working in private aided institutions and the lecturers working in government institutions will constitute similar class cannot be accepted. When a person claims that for all purposes they constitute a single class, it is the burden on him to prove. The respondent stated that both the lecturers of private and government institutions are different class. The courses which sought to be discontinued by the State, but still it is a welfare State and hence decision has been taken to rehabilitate the persons who have been age-barred for any further appointment. This policy has been taken by the Government. When a policy is initiated, then it is for the State to make requisite classification. Taking note of the occupation and nature of work, place of work and appointing authority for these two Lecturers, the Act itself has classified between Government and Government aided/private institutions and hence there cannot be any discrimination. When a policy decision has been taken to provide employment to persons working in different field, then it is the duty on the part of the Government to make necessary avenues for their absorption. Annexure-G the Act and item No.3 expressly excludes the private and aided institutions. Item No.3 of the notification classifies the persons who are working in the Government Aided Institutions or part-time employees and they have to be absorbed in a suitable post on the basis of exigency of work. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Act further makes it clear that the persons who are working in aided institutions are to be absorbed in aided institutions on the basis of exigency and availability of posts. These classifications have been made on the basis nature of work and place of work and employer and considering the appointing authority, the persons who are working in Government Institutions and Government aided and private institutions themselves constitute a class where the persons work in private aided institutions and they will not the part of the class who are working in Government Institutions. Similarly, the persons of Government and Government Aided institutions also constitute a class and they cannot be equated along with the Government employees. Under these circumstances, the classification made by the Government is reasonable. When the Government has got power to do a thing for the purpose of absorption, then the Government has also got competency to group the persons on the basis of various factors. Under the circumstances, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, violation or discrimination or the act of the Government is unconstitutional cannot be found in the scheme made by the Government. The petitioners are not similar to that of the persons who are working for the Government Institutions. They cannot compare themselves on par with the Government employees. As per the scheme, the lecturers who are working in the Government institutions, if they have to be absorbed in the Government Institutions only, and in case of non-availability of any post, then to be absorbed in the Government Departments. Similarly, the persons working in private institutions or the private aided institutions, they have to be absorbed in the like institutions itself, and if for want of post, they could be accommodated by absorption in other aided institutions. In the wake of this, when these two arrangements have been made in the scheme itself, that will not attract any violation of the provisions of the Constitution. While formulating the schemes for absorption, there may be circumstances of deviation from equal treatment. That itself cannot be focused for the purpose of equality class.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ALL INDIA STATION MASTERS AND ASSISTANT STATION MASTERS ASSOCIATION, DELHI v. GENERAL MANAGER, CENTRAL RAILWAYS reported in AIR 1960 SC 384 has held thus:
“The fact that the qualifications necessary for recruitment as Guards or Station Masters are approximately or even wholly the same can in no way affect the question whether they form one and the same class, or form different classes. As on the admitted facts the Roadside Station Masters and Guards are, as already stated, recruited separately and trained separately and have separate avenues of promotion, the conclusion is resistible that they form two distinct and separate classes as between whom there is no scope for predicating equality or inequality of opportunity in matters of promotion.”
9. In the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER v.
B. SUVARNA MALINI AND ANOTHER reported in AIR 2001 SC 606 at paragraph 9 of the judgment, it is observed that “The concept of equality before the law does not involve the idea of absolute equality among human beings which is a physical impossibility. All that Article 14 guarantees is a similarity of treatment contra-distinguished from identical treatment.
Equality before law means that among equals the law should be equal and should be equally administered and that the likes should be treated alike. Equality before the law does not mean that things which are different shall be treated as though, they are the same. (underlying supplied).
10. As it is submitted by the petitioner, it would have been inequality or arbitrariness or in case if there was a decision only absorb the lecturers of the Government institutions without touching the lecturers working in aided and private colleges, then it would have amounted to arbitrariness or discrimination or violation of Article 14 or 16(1) of the Constitution of India. But the Government has taken a wise decision in extending the scheme to rehabilitate the Lecturers who are working in Government institutions and to the Lecturers who are working in the aided/private institutions to absorb in the aided/private institutions only. But it is not the case here. Hence, viewed from any angle, it does not amount to arbitrariness or an unreasonable classification.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioners referred the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of HARYANA STATE ADHYAPAK SANGH AND OTHERS v. STATE OF HARYANA reported in (1988)4 SCC 571 in which the pay-scale that was extended to the Government teachers was subsequently revised, but the said revised pay-scale was extended to the teachers working in aided private schools two years later and the same has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as violation of term equality class. The pay scales of the teachers of government aided schools was only revised so as to bring them at par with the pay scales of teachers of government schools. The said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
12. In similar circumstance, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ATYANT PICHHARA BARG CHHATRA SANGH AND ANOTHER (supra) at paragraph 21 of the judgment, has observed thus:
“In our opinion, the amalgamation of two classes of people for reservation would be unreasonable as two different classes are treated similarly which is in violation of the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India which is to "treat similar similarly and to treat different differently." It is well settled that to treat unequals as equals also violates Article 14 of the Constitution.”
13. If the case of the petitioners is accepted to group both, the Lecturers in the Government Institutions and the Lecturers working in the Aided/Private Institutions, then it would lead to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The only meaning of Article 14 is that similarly situated persons are to be treated similarly and vice-versa. “Equality before law means that among classes the law should be equal and should be equally administered, that like should be treated alike.” [Ivor Jennings law of Constitution 5th Edition page 50.] 14. In the case of STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS v.
DAYA LAL AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2011 SC 1193, at paragraph 10 of the judgment, it is observed thus:
“The persons employed in the aided hostels were the employees of the respective organizations running those hostels and not the employees of the Government. The Government has merely prescribed the eligibility conditions to be fulfilled by the private organizations to get grants to meet the food and education expenses of students staying in such hostels. Therefore under no stretch of imagination persons employed by the aided hostels could be termed as persons employed by the State Government. Nor could the Government be held liable for their service conditions, absorption, regularisation or salary of employees of private hostels. If the employees (either permanent or temporary) of the aided hostels are not the employees of the Government, but of the aided private charitable organizations which run such aided hostels, they could not obviously maintain any writ petition claiming the status or salary on par with the corresponding post-holders in State Government service, nor claim regularization of service under the state government.”
15. In the light of the above judgment, the instant petitions are examined and it is found that the petitioners where they are working are the institutions and organizations, which are entirely different from the lecturers working in the Government institutions. The applicability of the selection, appointing authority, appellate authority and the statute itself are entirely different and the same cannot be made applicable and applied to the persons who are working for the Government. Under the circumstance, the stand taken by the petitioners that they are possessing the same qualification and are teaching the similar subject and shall not be discriminated for extension of benefit under Annexure-G cannot be accepted. The respondents are justified in making classification, which is just and in compliance of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Under no stretch of imagination the petitioners can claim them to be treated on par with the lecturers who are working in the Government institutions. The judgments referred above would clearly hold that “the persons employed in the aided institutions were employed in the respective institutions run by those institutions are not the employees of the government.” In this case also, the petitioners are the employees of the Institutions in which they are working and were appointed by the respective institutions and hence they cannot claim that they should be treated on par with the lecturers working in the Government colleges.
16. It is also to be stated here that in cases of this nature, when the Government takes decision as a matter of policy to protect both the Government Lecturers and the Lecturers working in the private/aided institutions for the purpose of absorption in the respective areas, then normally, there is no scope for challenge since it is a matter of policy. The petitioners do not get equal right. Unless that right exists, question of violation does not arise. Even that is tested in the case of the petitioners and it is found that the petitioners who are working in the private and government aided colleges they also have been extended the benefit of absorption not in the government colleges, but in the respective area where they are working, and in the aided institutions. Hence, I do not find any arbitrariness or violation of Article 14 and principle of equality. Under these circumstances, there are no justifiable grounds urged by the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitions are liable to be rejected and are rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE lnn