IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R. DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO.7484 OF 2019 & WRIT PETITION NO.13250 OF 2019 (S-R) BETWEEN 1. SRI KAMPALARANGA SARVAJANIKA VIDYARATHI NILAYA SAMSTHE (REGD) TUMAKURNAHALLI, MOLKALMUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT NOW AT CHITRADURGA - 577 501 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. SRI. KAMPALARANGA MAHASWAMY PRE-UNIVERSITY COLLEGE CHITRADURGA - 577 501 REPRESENTED BY ITS IN-CHARGE PRINCIPAL (BY SRI BASAVARAJ V SABARAD, ADVOCATE) ... PETITIONERS AND 1. THE DIRECTOR PRE-UNIVERSITY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SAMPIGE ROAD, 18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE - 560 003.
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR PRE-UNIVERSITY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, CHANNAKESHAVAPURA EXTENSION, OPP: BHIMAPPA NAYAKA ROAD CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
(BY SMT. M S PRATHIMA, AGA) ... RESPONDENTS THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENTS DATED 12.11.2018 AND 12.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND K AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioner institution is before this Court aggrieved by the endorsements dated 12.11.2018 and 12.12.2018, at Annexures-H and K respectively, issued by the respondent No.2-The Deputy Director, Pre-University Education Department, Chitradurga.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner institution was established in the year 1988-89. The institution has Arts and Science Section and was admitted to grant-in-aid during 2009 and 2012. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the post of Principal is not yet approved by the authorities. Therefore, one Sri G.S.Thippeswamy was recommended to be appointed as in-charge Principal and the respondent authorities had granted permission in this regard. However, it was found that the said Sri G.S.Thippeswamy was unable to cope up with the functions of the Principal and therefore the petitioner institution requested the respondent authorities to permit placing Sri Vasanth as in-charge Principal in the place of Sri G.S.Thippeswamy.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that by issuing the endorsement dated 12.11.2018, the respondent No.2 - The Deputy Director insisted that no objection be secured from all those teachers, who were senior to the said Sri Vasanth, if he has to be appointed as in-charge Principal. Thereafter, the petitioner institution has communicated by letter dated 12.11.2018 to the Deputy Director explaining the circumstances under which the institution recommended the name of Sri Vasanth, who was junior in Seniority to Sri Sri G.S.Thippeswamy. Nevertheless, the Deputy Director has proceeded to issue another endorsement dated 12.12.2018 rejecting the representation of the petitioner and therefore the petitioner is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no requirement in law while appointing an incharge principal that seniority has to be maintained. In this regard, learned counsel places reliance on decision of this Court in the case of Sri Balachandra.R/vs./ The Mysore Electrical Industries Ltd., in W.P.No.20/2019, which was disposed on 20.02.2019.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent.
6. It is seen that in Balachandra.R (supra), this Court while referring to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ramakant Shripad Sinal Advalplkar /vs./ Union of India and others reported in AIR 1991 Sc 1145, noticed that the Apex Court has held that incharge arrangement is not a recognition of or is necessarily based on seniority and that, therefore, no rights, equalities or expectations could be built upon it. However, it was held that the authorities cannot be arbitrary and unreasonable in the matter of identifying the candidates for the purpose of incharge or independent charge arrangement. In that view of the matter, it was held that the respondent authorities are required to justify by supplying reasons and demonstrate fair play in the orders passed in that regard.
7. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that this matter could be disposed of directing the respondent No.2 – The Deputy Director, Pre-University Education Department, Chitradurga to reconsider the representation dated 12.11.2018 given by the petitioner institution, whereby the petitioner has assigned reasons for recommending the name of Sri Vasanth, who was junior in seniority when compared to Sri G.S.Thippeswamy. The respondent No.2, may take note of the legal position as stated above and thereafter pass a speaking order having regard to the fact that the institution cannot function without there being a Principal in place. Therefore, the respondent No.2 – The Deputy Director, Pre-University Education Department, Chitradurga, shall consider and pass orders as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Writ petitions are accordingly disposed of.
KLY/ SD/- JUDGE