M B HONNAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these two writ petitions the prayers are to quash the impugned orders by which the appointment of certain teaching and non-teaching staff have been approved. While W. P. No, 26343 of 1993 is filed by one of the Directors of Sri Gurusiddeshwaraswamy Educational institution of Tumkur, W. P. No. 11580 of 1992 is filed by the same institution represented by its secretary. Since both the petitions involve identical facts and similar grounds, these writ petitions are disposed of by this common order.

(2.) THE solitary ground raised in the first writ petition is that the appointment of respondents 6 to 9 is opposed to Article 16 (4) of the Constitution as reservation policy was not followed and hence the approval of those appointments is bad in law. This writ petition is liable to be dismissed for the following reasons.-

(3.) IN the second writ petition, the institution has sought to quash the impugned order at annexure-A by which the appointment of respondents 3 to 5 have been approved. One of the grounds urged is that reservation policy was not followed, as has been contended in the first writ petition. This ground is covered in the reasons assigned while dealing with the first writ petition and the same need not be repeated.