LAWS(SC)-2008-11-40

STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. K GOVINDAPPA

Decided On November 20, 2008
STATE OF KARNATAKA Appellant
V/S
K. GOVINDAPPA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The respondent No.1, Shri K. Govindappa was appointed as a Lecturer in History in an aided private college owned and managed by the Vinayaka Rural Education Society, the respondent No.2 herein, with effect from 10th July, 1994. The said college, which was situated at Hegalavadi, Gubbi Taluk, Tumkur District, applied for approval of the appointment of the respondent No.1, but such prayer was refused by the Government of Karnataka on the ground that the appointment had been made in violation of the Roster Policy and that he had been appointed in a post which was reserved for a Scheduled Caste candidate. A review petition was filed by the respondent No.1 before the Government contending that since there was only a single post of Lecturer in History in the college, the reservation policy would not apply to the said post in which the respondent No.1 had been appointed. As the claim of the respondent No.1 was rejected by the Government, he filed a Writ Petition before the Karnataka High Court praying for quashing of the orders passed by the Government and for a direction upon the concerned authorities to approve his appointment with effect from 21st July, 1994, from which date he had joined his duties. Contesting the claim of the respondent No.1 the appellants contended before the Writ Court that even though the Management was running only one college, it had different disciplines for which there were several Lecturers. It was contended that the college had to maintain the Roster for the purpose of making appointments after taking into consideration the entire cadre of Lecturers, irrespective of subjects. It was also contended that in the college in question there were six posts of Lecturers and hence, the post of Lecturer in History could not be considered as a single post.

(3.) The submissions made on behalf of the appellants was rejected by the learned Single Judge upon holding that since the post of Lecturer in History was a single post, the reservation policy would not apply to the appointment made to the said post. The learned Single Judge quashed the orders passed by the Government upon holding that the appointment of the respondent No.1 was just and legal and directed the appellants to give approval to his appointment.