LAWS(KAR)-2021-6-166

STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. B. L. GEETHA

Decided On June 25, 2021
STATE OF KARNATAKA Appellant
V/S
B. L. Geetha Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is arising out of order dated 19.09.2018 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. NO.15352/2007 (B.L. GEETHA V. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA).

(2.) The facts of the case reveal that respondent No.1 B.L. Geetha was appointed as a Lecturer in the subject of Sociology in Sheshadripuram Evening College on 30.06.1992. Undisputed facts reveal that at the time of appointment the College was admitted to grant-in-aid vide Government order dated 30.10.1995. The grant-in-aid was extended to Teaching as well as Non-Teaching staff of the College. Undisputed facts also makes it very clear that persons appointed subsequent to the petitioner were extended the benefit of salary grant. However, the benefit was denied to respondent No.1. Later on, one Mr.Hanumantrayappa respondent No.4 was transferred / deputed to Sheshadripuram Evening College by an order dated 12.11.2001. The same was challenged before the Commissioner for Collegiate Education at Bangalore in Appeal No.9/2006. The appeal was filed under Section 130 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 with a prayer to set aside order dated 12.11.2001 and the appeal was dismissed on 19.09.2007. The order dismissing the appeal was challenged by respondent No.1 - B.L. Geetha before this Court.

(3.) Facts of the case further reveal that the respondent College at the time of appointment of respondent No.1 treated her as a General Merit category, though she was a member of Vokkaliga community and she was treated as over aged and on the aforesaid ground the case of respondent No.1 (petitioner before learned Single Judge) was turned down. The petitioner categorically contended before the learned Single Judge that she was appointed under Vokkaliga community which comes under OBC and for the same the maximum age for appointment was 38 years, and therefore, a prayer was made for quashment of the order passed by the State Government. Another ground raised for not confirming the appointment of respondent No.1 was she has secured 51.8% in her Masters Degree and she has not passed any NET/SLET Examination.