IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE B.M. SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.50167 OF 2014 [S-KAT] BETWEEN:
SRI. MAHANTESH S. MAGADUM SON OF SHIVA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT YARANDAHALLI, JIGANI CIRCLE, BENGALURU – 560 105.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI. SATISH K., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M.S.BHAGWAT, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001.
3. THE SELECTION AUTHORITY AND EX-OFFICIO JOINT DIRECTOR – 1 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER NRUPATUNGA ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001.
4. THE SELECTION AUTHORITY AND DIVISIONAL SECRETARY AND EX – OFFICIO JOINT DIRECTOR K.S.E.E. BOARD AND JOINT DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION MYSURU DIVISION MYSURU – 570 001.
5. THE SELECTION AUTHORITY AND DIVISIONAL SECRETARY AND EX-OFFICIO JOINT DIRECTOR K.S.E.E. BOARD AND JOINT DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION BELGAUM DIVISION BELGAUM – 590 001.
6. THE SELECTION AUTHORITY AND DIVISIONAL SECRETARY AND EX-OFFICIO JOINT DIRECTOR K.S.E.E. BOARD AND JOINT DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION GULBARGA DIVISION GULBARGA – 575 200.
...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. I. THARANATH POOJARY, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE ) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 03.09.2012 IN APPLICATION NO.3639 OF 2009(ANNEXURE-A TO WRIT PETITION ) AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION AS PRAYED FOR AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE POST OF DRAWING TEACHER UNDER THE PDP CATEGORY IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND APPOINT HIM TO THE SAID POST OF TEACHER IF HE IS OTHERWISE ELIGIBLE.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 25.01.2019 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, B.M.SHYAM PRASAD J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The applicant before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore (in short, ‘the Tribunal’) in Application No.3639 of 2009, has filed this writ petition impugning the learned Tribunal’s order dated 03.09.2012 whereby, the learned Tribunal has rejected the petitioner’s application. The petitioner has filed application in No.3639 of 2009 for directions to the respondents to select and appoint him to the post of a Drawing Teacher against the posts to be reserved in favour of the Project Displaced Person, Category (YN) in terms of Rule 9(1AA) of Karnataka Civil Service (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 as well as for further directions to the respondents to fill up 5% of the 576 notified vacancies vide the Notification dated 01.09.2017 from amongst candidates who were qualified under the Project Displaced Persons. The learned Tribunal has rejected this application in No.3639 of 2009 by its order dated 03.09.2012.
2. The respondent issued the Notification dated 01.09.2017 calling for applications to fill up 576 posts of Secondary School Assistant Master Teachers viz., Drawing Teachers, Dance Teachers and Drama Teachers in Bangalore, Mysore, Belgaum, Gulbarga Divisions. The petitioner impugned this Notification contending that 5% of total number of 576 posts had to be reserved by the respondents for special category called Project Displaced Persons in terms of Rule 9(1AA) of Karnataka Civil Service (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 (for short, “Rules”). The respondents, in terms of the aforesaid Rules, ought to have reserved 28.8 posts for the Project Displaced Persons out of the total 576 posts, but the respondents have reserved only 4 posts.
3. The petitioner asserted that his family members lost their dwelling house because of the “Krishna Project” and hence, he is a Project Displaced Person. The petitioner was eligible to apply under such special category and accordingly, the petitioner applied for the post of a Drawing Teacher. The learned Tribunal, while dismissing the petitioner’s application, has rejected the petitioner’s case as regards reservation for the Project Displaced Persons vide the Rules relying upon its earlier order in the Application No.2828/2009. The Leaned Tribunal also held that the petitioner’s application was liable to be rejected because (i) the petitioner had actively participated in the selection process without demur, (ii) the petitioner’s application was belated and (iii) petitioner had not impleaded the successful candidates.
4. The learned Tribunal relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of DHANANJAY MALIK vs STATE OF UTTARANCHAL reported in 2008 (1) SC L&S 1005 and JAFFER SAHIB vs SECRETARY, APSC & ORS. reported in (1996) 11 SCC 753 insofar as the propositions that a candidate who has unsuccessfully participated in the selection process without any demur, is estopped from challenging selection criterion after being declared unsuccessful and that no selection order could be set at naught without the selected candidates being made parties.
5. There is no dispute about certain material facts asserted on behalf of the respondents in the objection statement filed in this petition, which are as hereinafter. The respondents published a Provisional List on 08.03.2008, but the petitioner did not find a place in such Provisional List. The petitioner filed objections to the Provisional List asserting inter alia the very same grounds as regards the reservation of 28 posts out of the total 576 notified posts as per the Rules. The respondents considered such objections and issued the Endorsement dated 10.11.2008 informing the petitioner that the candidates who had applied under the Project Displaced Persons Category (YN) as the petitioner had secured 63.13% but the petitioner had secured only 53.59%. The petitioner did not implead the selected candidates.
6. Further, the petitioner’s challenge in the application is in effect to the Notification dated 01.09.2007, but the application in OA No.3639 of 2009 is filed on 12.08.2009 much beyond the limitation period allowed by the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Furthermore, it is undisputed that the learned Tribunal extended an opportunity to the petitioner vide its order dated 20.08.2009 to explain the delay, but the petitioner did not offer any explanation.
7. In the considered opinion of this Court, in view of the aforesaid undisputed facts, the petitioner’s application was not maintainable for the very reasons assigned by the learned Tribunal. As such, the application filed by the petitioner was rightly rejected by the learned Tribunal and hence, the impugned order does not call for any interference by this Court.
Accordingly, the Rule is discharged and the writ petition is dismissed.
SD/- SD/-
JUDGE JUDGE VK