ILYAS AHMED PATWEGAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this Court seeking for a writ of mandamus to approve his appointment and release full salary; for a writ of certiorari quashing the notification dated 26.08.2007 published in Samyukta Karnataka inviting applications; for a direction to the respondents to pay full salary attached to the post of the petitioner; for writ of certiorari to quash the order of the 2nd respondent dated 6.01.2010 granting approval to the appointment of respondent No.10; for a mandamus directing the respondent-Management to expedite the proceedings and to appoint the petitioner as fulltime grant-in-aid Lecturer in Urdu language and to seek the approval of the Government for the same.

(2.) Petitioner claims to be appointed as a Lecturer in Urdu in the 8th respondent Institution viz., Nehru Arts, Science and Commerce Degree College, Ghantikeri, on fulltime basis and has been working therein for nearly ten years. The petitioner claims to have passed M.A. in Urdu and has worked as Guest Lecturer for 3 years in P.G.Department of Urdu and Persian, Karnataka University, Dharward; 6 years as an Academic Counsellor in MANUU; and 3 years as a Lecturer in Political Science in Anjuman Women's College, Hubli. He claims that he has been working from the year 1998 with 8th respondent, from the year 1998 till 2002 worked as Part-time Lecturer and from 2002 on fulltime basis.

(3.) The petitioner claims that there were two permanent posts of Lecturers which were advertised by the 8th respondent-Management on 7.06.2002, for which he was selected in the meeting of the Committee dated 23.06.2002. He was issued with an appointment order on 1.07.2002. Petitioner contends that 8th respondent is a linguistic and religious minority institution and is government-aided. He states that even though his appointment was made in the year 2002, full salary was not paid to him and only Rs.3,000/- p.m. was being paid. Subsequently, 8th respondent issued one more notification on 26.08.2007 for one post, which, according to the petitioner, is unconstitutional and illegal and hence, he is seeking for quashing of the said notification.