IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.41646 OF 2017 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
R.RANGANATH S/O RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, WORKING AS ATTENDER, SIR M.VISHWESHWARAYA MEMORIAL PRE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, CHIKKABALLAPUR – 562 101 AND RESIDING AT AMBEDKAR NAGAR, CHAMARAJAPET, CHIKKABALLAPUR – 562 101.
(BY SRI. SUBRAMANYA BHAT.M, ADVOCATE) AND:
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY 2 . THE DIRECTOR PRE-UNIVERSITY EDUCATION BOARD, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU -12 3 . THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF P U BOARD, CHIKKABALLAPUR – 562 101.
4 . SECRETARY, SIR M.VISHWESHWARAYA MEMORIAL EDUCATION SOCIETY, CHIKKABALLAPUR - 562 101.
... PETITIONER 5 . PRINCIPAL SIR M.VISHWESHWARAYA MEMORIAL PRE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, CHIKKABALLAPUR – 562 101.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.V.RAMESH JOIS, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SMT. CHITRALEKHA H.R., ADVOCATE FOR R5; R4 SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 22.1.2015 ISSUED BY R-3 AT ANNEXURE-H; AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITON COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ THIS DAY, THE OURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the endorsement dated 22.01.2015, a copy whereof is at Annexure-H wherein the relief is denied to him by the third respondent-Deputy Director with the following text:
‘‘«µÀAiÀÄ: ¨sËvÀ±Á¸ÀÛç ¥ÀæAiÉÆÃUÁ®AiÀÄ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀgÀ ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ C£ÀÄzÁ£À gÀ»vÀ C£ÀĪÉÆÃzÀ£ÉUÁV ¸À°è¹zÀÝ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß »AwgÀÄV¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ.
F ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, G¯ÉèÃR-1gÀAvÉ ¨sËvÀ±Á¸ÀÛç ¥ÀæAiÉÆÃUÁ®AiÀÄ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀgÀ ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ C£ÀÄzÁ£À gÀ»vÀ C£ÀĪÉÆÃzÀ£ÉUÁV ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀĵÉÖÃ.
DzÀgÉ G¯ÉèÃR-2gÀ°è£À ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ, ¥ÀzÀ« ¥ÀƪÀð ²PÀët E¯ÁSÉ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ EªÀgÀÄ UÀÆæ¥ï – r ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ ªÀiÁvÀæ C£ÀÄzÁ£ÀPÉÌ M¼À¥Àr¸ÀĪÀ §UÉÎ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¹éÃPÀj¸À®Ä ¸ÀÆa¹gÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ, vÁªÀÅ G¯ÉèÃR-1 gÀ°è ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ ¨sËvÀ±Á¸ÀÛç ¥æÀAiÉÆÃUÁ®AiÀÄ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀgÀ ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ C£ÀÄzÁ£À gÀ»vÀ C£ÀĪÉÆÃzÀ£ÉUÁV ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÀªÀÄUÉ »AwgÀÄV¸À¯ÁVzÀÉÀ.’’ Petitioner’s appeal against the said endorsement has also been negatived by the second respondent vide order dated 28.07.2017, a copy whereof at Annexure-K is substantially on the same ground; this too is under challenge in the writ petition.
2. The official respondents are represented by Sri. M.V.Ramesh Jois, learned AGA; the respondent Nos.4 & 5 are represented by their private counsel; both the learned counsel resist the writ petition.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is of a considered opinion that, reprieve as under, needs to be granted to the petitioner because:
(a) the post of Laboratory Attendant is a Group-D post which is wrongly considered to be not so in the impugned orders; the Karnataka Education Department Service (Department of Public Instruction) (Recruitment) Rules 1967, treat the post in question as Group-D post/Class IV post; this becomes evident by Entry 88 in the schedule to these Rules;
(b) the official respondents appear to have been swayed away by the nomenclature i.e., “Laboratory Assistant”, without seeing the Job chart; there is no substantial difference between a “Laboratory Assistant” and a “Laboratory Attendant”; thus, there is an error apparent on the face of the record warranting indulgence of this Court.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds in part; impugned orders are set at naught and the matter is remitted for consideration afresh by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 within a period of three months, in accordance with law.
It is open to the petitioner to give a detailed representation containing material particulars so that the reconsideration of the matter becomes easy. It is also open to the answering respondents to solicit any information or documents from the petitioner or from the concerned Institution as are necessary for due consideration of the matter afresh; however, in the guise of such solicitation, delay shall not be brooked.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE DS