IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL No.3361 OF 2018 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI MOHAMED SUHAIL SON OF MOHAMED NOORULLA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS RESIDING AT 6TH MAIN KUVEMPUNAGAR KOLAR-563 101.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI.VENKATRAO GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MAHAMMAD TAHIR A., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF BACKWARD CLASSES VIKAS SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001.
4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MINORITY WELFARE VISHVESHWARAIAH CENTRE 12TH FLOOR, MAIN TOWER DR B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI VIKAS SOUDHA M S BUILDING BENGALURU -560 001.
5. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD WELFARE M S BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.
6. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ROOM NO.641, 6TH FLOOR M S BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001.
7. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR KARNATAKA RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS SOCIETY AN ORGANISATION OF SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT #8, MSB-1, 6TH AND 7TH FLOORS CUNNINGHAM ROAD BENGALURU-560 052.
(BY SRI. S.S. MAHENDRA, AGA FOR RESPONDENTS No.1 TO 6) ... RESPONDENTS THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL, BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 31.10.2018 IN WRIT PETITION NO.5845/2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND BY DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.7 TO ISSUE APPOINTMENT ORDER TO THE APPELLANT AS A COMPUTER TEACHER AND OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEFS SOUGHT IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.5845/2017.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 31.10.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.5845 of 2017 by which the petition was dismissed, the writ petitioner is in appeal.
2. The petitioner filed the writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for the following reliefs:
(a) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass an order for issue of a Writ of Mandamus or direction or any other appropriate Writ or Order/s directing the respondents State Authorities to pay a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs only) as compensation to the petitioner;
(b) To direct the Respondent No.7 to issue appointment order to the petitioner as Computer Science teacher with immediate effect;
(c) To direct the Respondents to give all service benefits increments, loss of pay, promotion etc., retrospectively; and (d) To direct the respondents State Authorities for payment of any other quantum of compensation to the petitioner as this Hon’ble Court deems fit under the circumstances of the case.”
3. The petitioner claims that he is a B.Sc (Computer Science) graduate having passed from Bengaluru University in the year 2010. It is stated that the 7th respondent invited applications to fill up the posts of teachers in Karnataka Residential Educational Institutions. The petitioner applied for the post of Computer teacher and states that he was selected as Computer Science teacher and his name was placed at Sl.No.1 in the additional select list published by the 7th respondent-the Executive Director of Karnataka Residential Education Society. The petitioner made several representations to 7th respondent to issue appointment order as Computer Science Teacher. On consideration of the representation of the petitioner, the 7th respondent issued an endorsement dated 19.01.2016 stating that additional select list is not considered and also stated that the additional select list would be in force only for a period of one year. It is the case of the petitioner that the 7th respondent-Appointing Authority issued appointment orders to the selected candidates in the first list and certain candidates had not reported within the stipulated time and as such the persons in the additional select list ought to have been appointed. It is a specific case of the petitioner that, one Mr.Keshava was issued with appointment order as Computer Science teacher under Category-I quota, but the said person did not report for duty and he was also cautioned that if he fails to report to duty, his appointment order will be canceled and orders will be issued to the candidates selected under the additional list. The petitioner who also belongs to Category-I is entitled to be appointed against the vacant post for which, Mr.Keshava had failed to report. As the petitioner was not given appointment order, he has approached this Court in the instant writ petition for the above reliefs. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition observing that the petitions were filed before this Court seeking weightage to the outsource teachers which were allowed and confirmed in the writ appeals and Special Leave Petition. In pursuance of the said orders, the entire list is redone. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the petitioner is before this Court in this appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents No.1 to 6. Perused the appeal papers.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the grounds raised by the petitioner. Further it is contended that the 7th respondent has not appointed any Computer Science teacher and one Keshava appointed as Computer Science teacher has not reported to duty. In his place, the petitioner was entitled to be appointed as Computer Science teacher. The petitioner is fully qualified for appointment as Computer Science teacher and grave injustice has been caused to the petitioner by not issuing appointment order by the 7th respondent. It is contended that there are no eligible candidates available for the post of Computer Science teacher as such, the petitioner who is qualified ought to have been appointed as Computer Science teacher. Thus prays for allowing the appeal.
6. Per contra, learned Government Advocate would submit that the petitioner is not entitled for any of the reliefs and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. Petitioner has no right to seek for appointment even though he is in the additional select list. Moreover it is the stand of the 7th respondent that no Computer Science teacher has been appointed. Hence prays for dismissal of the appeal.
7. On perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, even though the order of the learned Single Judge is not a reasoned order, we are of the view that the petitioner is not entitled for any of the reliefs sought for by him in the writ petition. Mere inclusion of a person’s name in the select list or additional select list would not confer any right on such selected candidates. It is for the selecting authority to operate the list or not to operate the list. A person selected in the list would get right to seek appointment, only if a candidate junior to him is appointed. In the case on hand, the petitioner states that he had applied for the post of Computer Science teacher in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the 7th respondent. The petitioner claims that his name appeared at Sl.No.1 in the additional select list published by the 7th respondent for the post of Computer Science teacher. But from the records and from the writ appeal pleadings it is clear that, no candidate is appointed to the post of Computer Science teacher according to the petitioner, who has produced Annexure-N/additional selection list published on 29.05.2012. Normally the additional selection list would be in existence for a period of one year. The petitioner had made representation and the respondents had issued endorsement/Annexure-F dated 19.01.2016 stating that the additional selection list would be in operation only for a period of one year as per the Government Notification dated 29.01.2011. The said endorsement is not under challenge. The select list is prepared by providing 5% service weightage to the outsource teachers as ordered by this Court in W.P.Nos.20204-20634 of 2011 disposed off on 13.07.2012 which is confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Moreover the petitioner has approached this Court only in the year 2017 whereas the additional list is of the year 2012. There is inordinate delay in approaching the Court for the relief sought for by the petitioner. In a matter of appointment, aggrieved person shall approach the Court with regard to his grievance within a reasonable time, or else, third party’s right would get crystallized. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has sought for compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- and the said prayer cannot be gone into in the writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The same would require recording of evidence and it is for the petitioner to prove, how he would be entitled for such compensation. For grant of other prayers, the petitioner has not made out any ground. No right of the petitioner is violated nor the petitioner has acquired any right to seek for issuance of order of appointment as Computer Science teacher. Thus, seen from any angle, no case is made out to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge nor to grant any relief sought in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the appeal, I.A.No.1 of 2019 does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, I.A.No.1 of 2019 is rejected.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE mpk/-* CT:KHV