IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION Nos.8113-8131/2015 C/W WRIT PETITION Nos.9056-9065/2015, 9050-9055/2015 & 45973/2015 AND 8094-8109/2015 (S-RES) IN WP Nos.8113-8131/2015:
BETWEEN:
1 . VISHWANATH M S S/O SHETTY GOWDA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS WORKING AS MATHS TEAHCER MDRS, S. HANKANAHALLI HOLENARASIPURA, HASSAN.
2 . SOWMYA S M D/O MALLESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS WORKING AS MATHEMATICS TEACHER MDRS: HANUMANTHANAGAR VILLAGE: HANUMANTHANAGAR TQ:BELUR, DIST HASSAN 3 . CHINNA SWAMY K C S/O CHANNAIAH C K AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS WORKING AS P E T TEACHER MDRS, VIDYAPEETHA NANJANAGUDU, MYSORE 4 . KRISHNAIAH S/O HANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, WORKING AS P.E TEACHER, KRCRS,NANJANAGUDU, MYSORE.
5 . KERIYA RAMA NAIK S/O RAMA CHOUD NAIK, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS WORKING AS PRINCIPAL MDRS:YELLAPUR TQ:YELLAPUR, DIST:KARWAR 6 . REVAPPA M. TELI S/O MAHALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS WORKING AS SOCIAL SCIENCE TEACHER MDRS:RAJANKATTI VILLAGE: RAJANAKATTI, POST:KESHAPAHATTI TQ:GOKAK, DIST:BELAGAVI 7 . DADAPEER NEGALUR S/O HAJARESAB AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, WORKING AS SOCIAL SCIENCE TEACHER, MDRS: MARANABEED VILLAGE, MARANABEED POST:MARANABEED TQ:HANAGAL, DIST:HAVERI 8 . VEERESHA NAIK.L S/O LAKSHMANA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, WORKING AS P.E.T., MDRS: ANANDHAGIRI VILLAGE, THIRTHAHALLI, TQ:THIRTHAHALLI, DIST:SHIVAMOGGA.
9 . DEVARAJA H.B.
S/O BASAVARAJAPPA.A.K. AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, WORKING AS SOCIAL SCIENCE TEACHER, MDRS:ANANDHAGIRI, VILLAGE:THIRTHAHALLI: POST: TQ:THIRTHAHALLI DIST:SHIVAMOGGA.
10 . KRISHNA A.S.
S/O SHIVAMANDE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, WORKING AS SCIENCE TEACHER, MDRS, GEJJALAGERE, MADDUR, MANDYA.
11 . G.S.BHAVYA S/O G.N.SATHISH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, WORKING AS ENGLISH TEACHER, MDRS: GANANGURU TQ:SRIRANGAPATTANA DIST:MANDYA.
12 . NAGARAJA.N S/O NAGENDRAPPA.B.N. AGED ABOLUT 38 YEARS, WORKING AS HINDI TEACHER MDRS:THIRTHAHALLI VILLAGE:ANANDHAGIRI POST: THIRTHAHALLI, TQ:THIRTHAHALLI, DIST SHIVAMOGGA.
13 . SUDHAKAR SHANKAR KAMATE S/O SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS WORKING AS HINDI TEACHER MDRS , HOOLIKATTI BAILHONGAL, BELGAUM 14 . PUSHPA K.P.
S/O PRABHAKARA K. AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS WORKING AS MATHEMATICS TEACHER MDRS: KAREKALLAHALLI VILLAGE: KAREKALLAHALLI POST: KAREKALLAHALLI TQ: GOWRIBIDANUR, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT 15 . B.R. KUMARA RAJU S/O S. REDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS WORKING AS SOCIAL SCIENCE TEACHER MDRS: GATTA, VILLAGE:MUSTUR POST: MUSTUR, TALUK: MULABAGILU KOLAR DISTRICT.
16 . NAGARAJ R. SURYAVANSHI S/O RAMACHANDRA AGED ABUOT 32 YEARS, WORKING AS HINDI TACHER MDRS: NAGANUR.
VILLAGE: NAGANUR, POST: NAGANUR TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM.
17 . SANTHOSH DANDIL S.O KALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, WORKING AS ENGLISH TEACHER MDRS: KALLOLI, VILLAGE:KALLOLI, POST KALLOLI, TQ: GOKAK DIST: BELGAUM.
18 . RASHMI G, W/O GOVINDA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, WORKING AS KANNADA TEACHER, MDRS: KUPPALU, VILLAGE: KUPPALU POST: KERESANTHE TQ: KADUR DIST: CHIKKAMAGALURU 19 . SHRISHAIL HOLER S/O BHIMAPPA HOLER AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, WORKING AS P. E. TEACHER, MDRS: SANTI BASTWAD POST: SANTI BASTWD TQ: BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI DIST: MYSORE.
...PETITIONERS (BY SRI M. NARAYANA BHAT, ADVOCATE) IN WP Nos.9056-9065/2015 BETWEEN:
1 . RAVEESH.N S/O NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, WORKING AS MATHEMATICS TEACHER MDRS ADAKIMARANAHALLI VILLAGE ADAKIMARANAHALLI, POST DASANAPURA TQ BENGALURU NORTH DIST BENGALURU-02.
2 . SUDHAKAR S/O MAHADEVA MUJAGOND AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, WORKING AS ENGLISH TEACHER MDRS KOPPAL-583231.
3 . ARCHANABAI W/O SURESH PATIL, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, WORKING AS HINDI TEACHER, MDRS BASAVAKALYAN VILLAGE BASAVAKALYAN, POST: TQ BASAVAKALYAN DIST BIDAR-583401.
4 . SAVITA M M S/O MAHALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, WORKING AS MATHEMATICS TEACHER, MDRS MALURU VILLAGE MALURU POST MALURU TQ SHIKARIPURA DIST SHIVAMOGGA-577201.
5 . RAVINDRA KUMAR S/O DURGAPPPADEVOOR, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, WORKING AS KANNADA TEACHER MDRS BEEVOOR, YELBURGA, KOPPAL-583231.
6 . NIRANJA KUMAR M E S/O ESHWARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, WORKING AS MATHS TEACHER, MDRS, KAREKALLAHALLI, GOWRIBIDANUR CHIKKABALLAPURA DIST-562101.
7 . VENKATESH G S/O GANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, WORKING AS SOCIAL TEACHER, MDRS, KUPPAHALLI, CHIKKABALLAPUR DIST-562101.
8 . OBELESH T S/O KUCHHITHIMMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, WORKING AS SOCIAL SCIENCE/KANNDA TEACHER KRCS, LAKSHMIPURA CROSS, GOWRIBIDANUR, CHIKKABALLAPUR DIST-562101.
9 . SUPRIYA D/O RAMAPPA K AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, WORKING AS HINDI TEACHER, KRCRS,, CHELLUR, BAGEPALLI, CHIKKABALLAPUR DIST-562101.
10 . MAHESH D S S/O SOMASHEKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, WORKING AS SOCIAL SCIENCE TEACHER MDRS, BABY BETTA, MELUKOTE, MANDYA-571401.
...PETITIONERS (BY SRI NAGARAJA RAO N., ADVOCATE) IN WP Nos.9050-9055 & 45973/2015: BETWEEN:
1. ROOPA H. R., D/O RAMAIAH H N AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, WORKING AS SOCIAL SCIENCE/ENGLISH TEACHER, KRCR, HUNSUR, MYSURU.
2 . PREMAKUMARI K. P. D/O K. PARWATHAIAH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, WORKING AS ENGLISH TEAHCER, MDRS, CHIKKANAHALLI, SIRA, TUMKUR.
3 . ROHINI D/O CHANDRAKANTH AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, WORKING AS KANNADA TEACHER, MDRS, HALLIKED, HUMNABAD, BIDAR.
4 . MAHANTESH A MAGADUM S/O APPASAHEB AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, WORKING AS MATHS TEACHER, MDRS, NIDASOSHI, HUKKERI BELGAUM.
5 . SUNITHA G RAO D/O GOPALAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, WORKING AS MATHS TEACHER, MDRS KARKALA, UDUPI.
6 . NAYANA P D/O PUTTASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, WORKING AS MATHS TEACHER, KRCS, SRIRANGAPTNA, MANDYA.
7 . MAHADEVI D/O RAMACHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, WORKING AS KANNADA TEACHER, MDRS, RAICHUR ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI DEEPAK J., ADVOCATE) IN WP Nos.8094-8109/2015 BETWEEN:
1. PRAKASH H.B.
S/O BYREGOWDA H.B AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS WORKING AS COMPUTER TEACHER MDRS: SRIRANGAPATTANA TOWN SRIRANGAPATTANA MANDYA DISTRICT 2 . BHAMA N.S.
S/O SUBBEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS WORKING AS KANNADA TEACHER MDRS NUGGEHALLI NUGGEHALLI VILLAGE NUGGEHALLI POST C.R. PATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT 3 . M. PRAVEEN KUMAR S/O MATHAYA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS WORKING AS MATHS TEACHER MDRS CHAMARAJPET BANGALORE 4 . M.G. ROHINI W/O B.K. SIDDARAMESHA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS WORKING AS SOCIAL SCIENCE TEACHER MDRS KANDAGALLU KANDAGALLU VILLAGE, KUDLIGI TALUK BELLARY DISTRICT 5 . THAMANNA BANU W/O EQBAL AHAMED AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS WORKING AS HINDI TEACHER MDRS: S W, TQ:HOLENARSIPUR, DIST HASSAN 6 . THARANATHA G S S/O SHIVAPPA G S AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS WORKING AS PRINCIPAL MDRS: D S W TOWN VILLAGE: HOLENARASIPUR POST: HOLENARASIPUR TQ: HOLENARASIUR DIST: HASSAN 7 . S. DORESWAMY S/O K. SANNE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS WORKING AS PRINCIPAL MDRS: TATTEKERE VILLAGE: TATTEKERE POST: TATTEKERE TQ: HOLENARASIPURA DIST: HASSAN 8 . NIRANJAN B. K.
S/O KEMPE GOWDA B. K. AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS WORKING AS SCIENCE TEACHER MDRS:K R PET TOWN VILLAGE:K R PET POST:K R PET, TQ:K R PET DIST:MANDYA 9 . MAHESHA K R S/O KITTI RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS WORKING AS HINDI TEACHER MDRS:CHAMARAJPET VILLAGE:CHAMARAJPET POST:CHAMARAJPET TQ:CHAMARAJPET DIST:BANGALORE CITY 10 . LOKESHA K S/ KARIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS WORKING AS HINDI TEACHER MDRS:ST. MORARJI PERIYAPATTANA VILLAGE:KAGGUNDI TQ:PERIYAPATTANA DIST:MYSORE 11 . SHOBHA H G M W/O SHIVAKUMARA H G M AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, WORKING AS SOCIAL SCIENCE TEACHER MDRS KANDGALU VILLAGE: KANDGALU POST GAJAPURA, TQ KUDLIGI DIST BELLARY 12 . MAMATHA B Y W/O YOGESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, WORKING AS ENGLISH TEAHCER MDRS RANGAPURA VILLAGE BELAGUNBA POST BELAGUMBA TQ ARASIKERE DIST HASSAN 13 . PRABHAKER S/O DHANDIBA RAO AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, WORKING AS HINDI AND SOCIAL SCIENCE TEACHER, MDRS BIDAR VILLAGE, BANBALGI POST BIDAR, TQ BIDAR DIST BIDAR.
14 . RANGAPPA S/O LAXMAN REVADAKUNDI AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, WORKING AS ENGLISH TEACHER, MDRS BAGDAL VILLAGE BAGDAL, POST BAGDAL TQ BIDAR: DIST BIDAR 15 . N. A. SUNIL KUMAR S/O ANANDA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, WORKING AS P E TEACHER MDRS N R PURA VILLAGE, N R PURA POST N R PURA TQ N R PURA DIST: CHIKKAMANGALURU 16 . SHANTHE GOWDA A R S/O RANGASWAMY A M AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, WORKING AS PRINCIPAL MDRS BELUR TOWN, VILLAGE, BELUR POST BELUR, TQ BELUR DIST HASSAN.
...PETITIONERS (BY SRI K. B. NARAYANA SWAMY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, M.S. BUILDINGS, BANGALORE 560001.
2 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MINORITIES, M.S BUILDINGS, BANGALORE 560001.
3 . THE KARNATAKA RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS SOCIETY, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NO.179, "RUPA COMPLEX"
2ND AND 3RD FLOOR, 1ST MAIN ROAD, SESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE 560020.
…RESPONDENTS (COMMON IN ALL MATTERS) (BY SRI H.R. SHOWRI, HCGP FOR R1 & R2; SRI NAGAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R3) **** THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A DIRECTION HOLDING THAT TIPANI DATED 2.12.2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-E1 IS ILLEGAL AND IS OPOSED TO ARTICLES 14,16 & 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION AND ALSO IS OPOSED TO THE ORDERS PASSED BY THIS COURT ETC., THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R All these petitioners, who are Teachers of various Schools working under the control of the Respondent No.3 – Karnataka Residential Educational Institutions Society (‘KREIS’ for short) are before this Court for the following reliefs:
a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction holding that Tippani bearing No. Nil dated 2.12.2014 produced at Annexure-E1 is illegal and is opposed to Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution and also is opposed to the orders passed by this Hon’ble Court to meet the ends of justice.
b) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents quashing the Select List bearing reference No. KA.VA.SHE.SA.SA/ADALITHA/HOO.
NE/CR-01-2013-14 dated 10.12.2014 produced at Annexure-F as the same is illegal and violative of Article 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution.
c) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents grant weightage of 5% for each academic year’s service irrespective of the date of appointment and proportionate weightage to the service which is less than one half of the academic year and further consider the cases of the petitioner for appointment to the posts to which they have applied to meet the ends of justice.
d) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents grant weightage to the service put by the petitioners irrespective of the subject taught by them the case of the petitioners for the appointment to meet the ends of justice.
e) Issue a writ mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents consider the objections filed by the Petitioner and ascertain the service put by the Petitioner from the school records without the intervention of the teachers and principals who were appointed during the pendency of the WP 20204- 364/2011 and WA 5127/2012 to meet the ends of justice.
f) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents include the names of the petitioners in the final select list and further consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the posts of Principals/Teachers in the services of the schools run/controlled by the Karnataka Residential Institutional Society from the date on which the respondents have appointed Teachers and Principals in the year 2012/with effect from occurrence of the vacancy or whichever is earlier and grant them fixation of pay, arrears of salary and increments and all the consequential benefits to meet the ends of justice.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners in these writ petitions has filed a memo dated 22.10.2019, today, in the open Court to dismiss the prayer (b) as not pressed, with liberty to the petitioners to approach this court, if need arises in future, in separate Proceedings.
3. The memo dated 22.10.2019 is placed on record.
Accordingly, the prayer (b) in these writ petitions is dismissed as not pressed, with liberty to the petitioners approach this Court, if need arises in future, in separate Proceedings, in accordance with law.
4. It is the case of the petitioners that they are qualified to be appointed to the posts of Teachers/Principals and they were appointed as Principals/Teachers and now they are wrongfully relieved from service. Each one of them has a Bachelor’s/Master’s Degree in the discipline of Arts/ Science/Mathematics or equivalent qualification. Some of the petitioners have passed Bachelor’s Degree in Education or possess equivalent qualification and some of them are qualified to be appointed as Principals. Every one of them were appointed either to the post of Principal or as Teacher during the ‘No Rule Period’ in Morarji Desai Residential Schools or in Morarji Desai Residential Schools for the Minorities, Kittur Rani Chennamma Schools or in Ekalavya Model Residential Schools, which are situated in different parts of Karnataka working under the 3rd respondent. It is further contended that all the above schools were started as a succor to the talented children who could not afford quality education. The State Government took initiative by following the Scheme of the Central Government under which Javahar Navodaya Vidyalayas were started.
5. It is further case of the petitioners that as on the date of filing these writ petitions, there are about 600 schools which are under the control of the Department of Social Welfare and there are another 50 to 60 Schools which are under the control of Minority Department of Government of Karnataka. More than 100 schools are in the pipelines as per the statement made by the Minister for Social Welfare on the floor of the house in the Belgaum Session of the Legislature which has appeared as a news item in ‘Prajavani’ dated 19.12.2014. Originally, Schools were started in different names and now there are only five categories of Schools viz., 1) Morarji Desai Residential Schools which include Schools meant for students from the BCM Category/SC-ST category; 2) Ekalavya Model Residential Schools meant for ST students, wherein 75% of the students are admitted from SC-ST category and 25% from other categories; 3)Kithur Rani Chennamma Schools which are meant for girls; 4) A.B. Vajapayee Residential Schools – Co-education and 5) Morarji Desai Residential Schools for Minorities. All the above Schools are under the control of the 3rd respondent – KREIS. The 5th category which is under the control of the 3rd respondent - KREIS is sought to be handed over to the Department of Minorities, which is yet to be done. The State Government in its order dated 22.6.2001 as per Annexure-A1 made proposal for transfer of residential schools to the 3rd respondent – KREIS. Thereafter, the Government decided to continue the schools under its management as could be seen from the order dated 5.10.2004 as per Annexure-A2.
6. It is further case of the petitioners that the Government by its order dated 21.10.2009 had constituted a Committee to make recruitments. Identical orders were issued in the past. By the said order, a Committee was constituted under the Chairmanship of the Deputy Commissioner. The said Committee was authorized to recruit Teachers as per the Government Order dated 21.10.2009. When they were recruited, there was a notification inviting applications and there was a written test followed by an Interview. Thereafter, a select list of eligible candidates was prepared and based on the said select list and by following roster and also by complying with the reservation policy, the above Petitioners appointed. Thereafter, orders of appointment came to be issued in their favour. The Zilla Panchayaths were recruiting Teachers to the above schools for good length of time till they were handed over the KREIS. Annexure-A5 dated 17.5.2010 is the recruitment notification issued by the Deputy Commissioner and Annexure-A6 prescribes the qualification. In pursuant to the said notifications, candidates submitted their applications and subsequently, they were asked to undergo a written test and interviews also conducted. Nehru Yuvaka Kendra was one of the Agency in several districts through which the respondents got the orders of appointment issued to the Teachers and Principals. Kenoics was another organization chosen by the respondents to issue the orders of appointment to the Teachers selected by the Committee constituted by the respondents.
7. It is further case of the petitioners that their appointment was not a back door entry. There was no transgression of any rules. The selection was done after issue of a notification, followed by a written test and Interview and all the trappings of regular recruitment were followed while making the said recruitment and there was no private Agency in the picture till the selection took place. The Zilla Panchayats at the instance of the respondents constituted a Committee for recruitment of Teachers and Principals. Private agencies were roped in thereafter for the reasons best known to the respondents, and got issued orders of appointment through the said agencies. The said agencies are not contractors within the meaning of the Contract Labour (Regulations and Abolition) Act. None of the respondents had taken permission to employ contract labour nor the contractor engaged by the respondents had registered himself/itself and obtained licenses as required under the provisions of the said Act.
8. It is further case of the petitioners that when the petitioners were appointed, there were no recruitment rules in force as already stated. Thereafter, the Management of the Schools was handed over to the KREIS by the Government and the Zilla Panchayat. The KREIS started exceeding its limits and therefore, the Government decided to wind up KRIES at one point of time. But, KRIES continued to exist and the Government backed out of the proposal of winding it up for the reasons best known to it.
9. It is further case of the petitioners that ultimately, the State Government finally decided to frame recruitment rules for KRIES and Draft Recruitment Rules were framed by the Government and the same were published and objections were filed by several Teachers. Despite filing objections, without considering the same, the Draft Rules published were made final. The Rules provided for grant of weightage to the petitioners and similarly situated Teachers who were selected by the Committee constituted under the Government Orders by the Zilla Panchayaths under the Chairmanship of the Deputy Commissioner and appointed through the agencies. By misinterpreting the Rules, the 3rd respondent – KREIS only favoured the Teachers who were recruited by KREIS, which was one of the Contractor at the said point of time as it had no administrative control over the Schools.
10. It is further case of the petitioners that in the circumstances, Teachers were compelled to approach this Court by filing Writ Petition Nos.20204-20364/2011 and connected matters. This Court considering the rival contentions of both the parties by its order dated 13.7.2012 allowed the said Writ Petitions in part and issued certain directions directing the respondents therein to regularize the Principals and Teachers appointed prior to 2004-05 and continued in service as on the date of Absorption Regulations, 2011 came into force subject to fulfilling the other conditions. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, KREIS filed Writ Appeal No.5127/2012 and connected matters. The Division Bench of this Court by its Judgment dated 28.2.2013 dismissed the Appeals affirming the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the respondents therein i.e, Principals/Teachers are entitled for service weightage. Aggrieved by the said order, the 3rd respondent – society also filed SLP (civil) No.30845/2013 and connected matters, which came to be dismissed on 9.9.2013. In the mean time, there were series of discussions between the respondents and representatives of Teachers, who were required to be removed on re-doing select list. A Tippani dated 2.12.2014 came to be issued for publication of second provisional list as per Annexure-E1.
11. It is further case of the petitioners that inspite of the directions issued by this Court, affirmed by the Division Bench and reaffirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the select list of eligible candidates does not contain the names of the petitioners and the same is illegal and the Teachers who were appointed during the ‘no rule period’ cannot be held to be not eligible after the rules are introduced. Therefore, the inaction on the part of the respondents in not selecting the petitioners is violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the constitution of India. Therefore, the petitioners are before this Court for the reliefs sought for.
12. The respondents including the State Government have not filed objections.
13. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
14. Sri M. Narayana Bhat, Sri K.B. Narayana Swamy, Sri N. Nagaraja Rao and Sri Deepak, learned counsel for the petitioners in these writ petitions contended with vehemence that select list has been prepared on the basis of the particulars furnished by the Teachers appointed during the pendency of the earlier proceedings. The said Teachers had furnished factually incorrect particulars for the purpose of the preparation of the list. If the select list is re-done, the Principals and Teachers appointed would lose their position. The present list is prepared on the basis of the information furnished by the interested parties. The Annexure-E1 – Tippani dated 2.12.2014 issued by the respondents is in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. They further contended that the names of the petitioners are not included in the list which was published by the KREIS. The publication of the list was brought to the notice of this Court in Contempt Petition filed by the Teachers. It was stated by the respondents that they have complied with the orders passed by this Court. Recording the said statement, the Contempt Proceedings were dropped. They would further contend that the impugned Tippani as per Annexure-E1 dated 2.12.2014 is issued without following the rules and orders passed by this Court and the same is violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and the same cannot be sustained. They further contended that the writ petitions and writ appeals are all concluded as far back as in the year 2012 and 2013 respectively. Despite lapse of two years’ time as on the date of filing the present writ petitions, the respondents did not comply the orders passed by this Court. Therefore, the impugned action of the respondents cannot be sustained and directions as sought for shall be granted.
15. It is further contended that the petitioners had given all their particulars in the earlier round of writ petitions. None of the said facts were disputed. It was not the case of the respondents in the earlier round of proceedings that the petitioners are not entitled to weightage. The Division Bench of this Court while confirming the order passed by the learned Single Judge, has in categorical terms recorded a finding that the petitioners are entitled to weightage and regularization of their service. Now, it is not open to the respondents to change the very basis of preparation of the list. Therefore the impugned action of the respondents cannot be sustained. It is further contended that since the petitioners are entitled to award of 5% of marks for a year’s service, for part of year’s service, proportionate weightage is required to be extended. The services of the petitioners were utilized by the respondents irrespective of their academic qualification. Now, technicalities are sought to be cited for depriving them of the weightage for each completed year of service. This should not have been done by the respondents. It is in utter violation of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petitions, which is affirmed by the Division Bench in the Writ Appeals and re-affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP. Therefore, the petitioners sought to allow the writ petitions for the reliefs sought for.
16. Per contra, Sri Nagaiah, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent in all these Writ Petitions sought to justify the action of the respondents and contended that the 3rd respondent has not directly appointed the petitioners and they were appointed by the outside Agency under the control of the 3rd respondent and inspite of following the procedure and giving weightage, the petitioners were not selected. He would further contend that in pursuance of the orders passed by this Court and in terms of the Karnataka Residential Educational Institutions Society (Cadre & Recruitment) Regulations-2011, the 3rd respondent has prepared Tippani as per Annexure-E1 dated 2.12.2014 to consider the weightage of the petitioners. Inspite of the same, the petitioners were not selected. Therefore, he sought to dismiss all these writ petitions.
17. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record carefully.
18. It is an undisputed fact that earlier all these petitioners were before this Court in Writ Petition Nos.20204-20364/2011 and connected matters seeking certain reliefs. This Court considering the entire material on record has recorded a finding that “pursuant to the recruitment notification dated 27.4.2011, the respondents conducted combined competitive examination.
Respondents further contend that the petitioners in the combined competitive examination have not secured the qualifying marks required for selection. Now, the respondents have published the final selection list and the additional selection list. Admittedly, the service weightage was not extended to the petitioners while processing the final selection list and the additional selection list. Therefore, the respondents have to re-issue the final selection list by extending the benefit of service weightage to the petitioners.” It has also recorded a finding that the Absorption Regulations are not applicable to the non- teaching staff. Ultimately, the said writ petitions came to be partly allowed with the following directions:
i) Writ petitions are partly allowed ii) The petitioners are not entitled for absorption under the Absorption Regulations, 2011.
iii) The respondents shall regularize the Principals and teachers appointed prior to 2004-2005 and continued in service as on the date of Absorption Regulations, 2011 came into force subject to fulfilling the other conditions.
iv) It is declared that all the Principals and teachers including the petitioners herein appointed on or after 2004-2005 are entitled for the benefit of service weightage as specified in Recruitment Regulations, 2011.
v) The respondents to complete the selection process pursuant to the recruitment notification dated 27.4.2011 by granting the benefit of service weightage to the petitioners and all other similarly situated Principals and teachers.
vi) Since respondents have already processed the applications and issued final selection list and additional selection list, they have to redo the process of selection by extending the benefit of service weightage to the petitioners and similarly situated candidates.
vii) Till the completion of selection process as stated above the present placement of petitioners and others who are continuing in service shall not be disturbed.
viii) The prayer in the writ petitions in so far as it relates to quashing of recruitment notification dated 27.4.2011 is hereby rejected.
ix) The writ petitions filed by the non-teaching staff are hereby dismissed.
19. It is also not in dispute that, being aggrieved by the said directions/orders passed by the learned single Judge of this Court, the 3rd respondent-the Karnataka Residential Educational Institutions Society filed W.A.No.5127/2012 and connected appeals. The Division Bench of this Court, considering the entire material on record, recorded a finding that, “While dealing with the regularization of service of temporary employees, the Hon’ble supreme Court had repeatedly held that, where initial entry was legal, the candidates were qualified, appointment made against the sanctioned post, long service would entitle them to be candidate for awarding service weightage. On the other hand, if the initial entry into service was illegal or where the candidate did not possess the qualification prescribed for the post, the question of awarding service weightage does not arise. In the instant case, the initial entry into service is not back door entry. The candidates are qualified and eligible to be appointed as teachers. In pursuance to the permission granted by the State Government prescribing the qualification to the post, the respondents were appointed by the concerned Zilla Panchayats. All the respondents (present petitioners) have necessary qualification to the said posts. There is no differences between the appointment made by the appellant Society (3rd respondent herein) as well as the Zilla Panchayats on outsourcing. Hence, there is no infirming or irregularity in the order passed by the learned single Judge directing the appellant to award service weightage to the respondents also (present petitioners).
20. The said order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.5127/2012 and connected appeals confirming the order passed by the learned single Judge has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by its order dated 09.09.2013 in SLP No.30845/2013.
21. In view of the above, the learned single Judge and the Division Bench, in categorical terms, held that the petitioners’ entry into service is not back door entry. They were qualified and eligible for being appointed as teachers, in pursuance of the permission granted by the State Government prescribing the qualification to the post and accordingly, petitioners were appointed by the concerned Zilla Panchayath. All the petitioners have necessary qualification to the said post and there is no difference between the appointment made by the present respondent No.3-Society and the Zilla Panchayath on outsourcing. Therefore, the present petitioners are entitled to award of service weightage. The said concurrent finding of fact recorded by this Court based on the material documents, has reached finality, since the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dismissed the SLP filed by the respondent No.3.
22. In view of the above, the 3rd respondent is bound to follow the directions issued by the learned single Judge, confirmed by the Division Bench and reaffirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and issue final selection list after giving service weightage. Admittedly, as on today, the respondents have not published the list, considering the directions issued by the learned single Judge, confirmed by the Division Bench and reaffirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
23. Very curiously, the 3rd respondent issued Tippani dated 02.12.2014 as per Annexure-E1 and formulated certain guidelines. When the learned single Judge, and the Division Bench of this Court, in categorical terms held that all the petitioners were not appointed through back door entry and they were selected after following the procedure and therefore, they are entitled to service weightage, it is not open for the 3rd respondent to prepare a Tippani which has no source either in the recruitment rules or in the observation made by this Court. It seems that the Tippani issued by the 3rd respondents is only with an intention to remove the basis of directions issued by this Court indirectly which is impermissible in law. Therefore, the Annexure-E1/Tippani dated 02.12.2014 issued by the 3rd respondent cannot be sustained.
24. Infact, what is found in Annexure-E1/Tippani is the meaning of the words ‘completed year of service’ and continuous service’ as provided in Section 2a and 2b of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which reads as under:
2a. “Completed year of service” means continuous service for one year.
2b. “Continuous Service” means-An employee shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he has, for that period, been in uninterrupted service, including service, which may be interrupted on account of sickness, accident, leave, absence from duty without leave (not sickness, accident, leave, absence from duty without leave (not being absence as break in service has been passed in accordance with the standing orders, rules or regulations governing the employees of the establishment), lay-off, strike or a lock-out or cessation of work not due to any fault of the employee, whether such uninterrupted or interrupted service was rendered before or after the commencement of this Act;”
25. Admittedly, all the assertions made by the petitioners in the present writ petitions have not been denied either by the 3rd respondent or the State Government. The State Government has been a silent spectator sitting on the fence to over see the drama between the petitioners and the 3rd respondent which is never expected by this Court. When the State Government was a party in the earlier Writ Petitions and Writ Appeals before this Court, it is for the State Government to come forward in the interest of justice to direct the 3rd respondent to comply the order passed by this Court in respect of petitioners and other similarly situated persons. The same has not been done.
26. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the inaction on the part of the 3rd respondent in not considering the directions issued by this Court cannot be tolerated.
27. At this stage, Sri Nagaiah, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent brought to the notice of the Court that in pursuance of the directions issued by this Court, selection list has been issued as per Annexure-D by giving service weightage, but petitioners have not been selected. Though the submission of the learned counsel is to be accepted, there is no document showing that the petitioners’ case is rejected. Therefore, the order passed in respect of other candidates does not amount to compliance of the directions issued by this Court. It is the duty of the respondents to pass specific order in respect of petitioners as to whether they are selected or not. The same has not been done.
The inaction on the part of the respondent in not considering the directions issued by this Court cannot be sustained.
28. For the reasons stated above, the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned Tippani dated 02.12.2014 vide Annexure-E1 is without any basis and in utter violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and cannot be sustained. Accordingly, Annexure-E1 is quashed only insofar as petitioners are concerned. A writ of mandamus is issued to the 3rd respondent – The Karnataka Residential Educational Institutions Society, to grant 5% weightage to each academic year of service of the petitioners irrespective of the date of appointment and proportionate weightage to the service which is less than one half of the academic year, in terms of the Absorption Rules and pass appropriate Orders individually in respect of each of the petitioner, in accordance with law, within an outer limit of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Order, strictly in terms of the orders passed by the learned single Judge, confirmed by the Division Bench and reaffirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE Pages 1 to 33 .. gss/- 34 to end .. kcm/-