IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MAY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR WRIT PETITION NO.52802/2013 (S REG) BETWEEN SRI RAMESH S.S. AGED 39 YEARS, LECTURER IN KANNADA, SBRR MAHAJANA PU COLLEGE, JAYALAKSHMIPURAM, MYSORE (BY SRI L SRINIVASA BABU, ADV.) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.
3. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001 4. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, ... PETITIONER JLB ROAD, MYSORE REGION, MYSORE.
5. THE DIRECTOR PRE UNIVERSITY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, 18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-560 003.
6. SRI MAHAJANA EDUCATION SOCIETY ® JAYALAKSHMIPURAM, MYSORE-570 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI ANANDEESWAR D R, HCGP FOR R1-R5, SRI SOMASHEKAR, ADV. FOR S.N.MURTHY ASSTS. FOR R6.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DT.27.11.2013 PASSED BY THE DIRECTOR, PRE UNIVERSITY EDUCATION, BANGALORE VIDE ANNX-H & DIRECT THE R-1 & 2 TO APPROVE THE APPOINTMENT OF PETITIONER FOR APPROVAL.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Learned High Court Govt. Pleader Sri. D.R. Anandeeswar accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 5.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner has called in question the proceedings of the 5th respondent dated 27.11.2012 and prays for quashing of the same and has also prayed for a further declaration in the light of a long period of 18 years service rendered by the petitioner in the 6th respondent college and for such other reliefs as this court deems fit and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a part time lecturer in the college run by the 6th respondent Society vide appointment order dated 20.06.1998. That since from the date of appointment the petitioner has been discharging his duties. In representation dated 04.07.2008 the petitioner has made a request to the management to consider and appoint him as a full time lecturer. That on account of inaction, the petitioner approached this court in W.P. No.466/2010 which came to be disposed off by order dated 29.05.2012 whereby, this court while so disposing off the writ petition was pleased to direct the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for approval of appointment as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents without reference to the observations of this court has proceeded to pass the impugned order vide Annexure-H dated 27.11.2012. It is contended that vacancies have arisen on account of the retirement of certain other lecturers and despite the same the case of the petitioner has not been considered and petitioner was relieved from duty on 31.05.2010.
5. Per contra the 6th respondent would submit that there are no vacant posts and that the 6th respondent on account of lack of demand from amongst the students community has reduced the original 8 classes to 2 classes and that there is no scope for appointment of any additional lecturers. It is further contended that as per Annexure-R6-A which has been obtained by the respondent from one Vijaya Vittala Composite Pre- University College it is found that the petitioner has been appointed as a full time lecturer, since the academic year 2009-2010 itself. Learned counsel for the petitioner would fairly admit the same, but contend that the said institution is not an aided institution and there is no permanent job. The fact remains that the petitioner has been relieved from the services much prior to the direction issued by a Co- ordinate Bench of this court. The respondents have considered the case of the petitioner and have set-out valid reasons which reasons are not countered by the petitioner. The petitioner is unable to demonstrate any error or illegality in the reasoning set-out by the respondent.
6. In that view of the matter, the question of granting reliefs as sought for by the petitioner does not arise in the absence of any factor vitiating the impugned order the reliefs sought for cannot be feasibly considered.
Accordingly, writ petition must fail and accordingly, rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE Chs* CT-HR