MARTANDAPPA B HOSALLI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH these petitions are listed in the orders' list, with the consent of the learned Counsels appearing for the parties, these petitions are taken up for final hearing and disposed of by this order.

(2.) SOME of the petitioners in these petitions are either Group 'd' employees or Junior Assistants in the employment of the 4th respondent-University (hereinafter referred to as 'the University' ). In these petitions they have called in question the correctness of the Government order dated 30th March, 2000, a copy of which has been produced as annexure-A. In Annexure-A, the 1st respondent in exercise of the power conferred on it under sub-section (8) of Section 8 of the Karnataka Universities Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), nullified the resolution Nos. 26 and 27, dated 24th December, 1998 passed by the syndicate of the University. In Resolution No. 26, the Syndicate of the university took a decision to extend the benefit of pay scale of Rs. 80-145 to all Group 'd' employees and in Resolution No. 27 the Syndicate of the University took a decision to confer the status of Junior assistants on all those Group 'd' employees who had passed S. S. L. C. examination.

(3.) SRI Adi, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners challenging the correctness of the Government Order, Annexure-A made two submissions. Firstly, he submitted that since Order, Annexure-A has been passed without hearing the petitioners and without giving an opportunity to the petitioners, the said order is liable to be quashed on the ground that the same came to be passed in disregard of the principles of natural justice. Elaborating this submission, Sri Adi pointed out that though the University was heard while passing the impugned order as required under the proviso given to sub-section (8) of Section 8 of the act, the petitioners who are directly affected on account of the impugned decision were not heard by the 1st respondent. It is his submission that since the University had passed the resolutions in question keeping in mind the disparity in pay scales of Junior Assistants who are working as lab Assistants and also the Group 'd' employees there is absolutely no justification to pass the impugned order without hearing the petitioners. In support of this submission that the petitioners should have been heard before passing the impugned order he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v Ram kishan and Others and also referred to me the observation made by the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Scheduled Caste and Weaker Section Welfare Association (Regd.) and Another v State of Karnataka and others and also in the case of Mahiboobsab v Chief Officer, Town Municipal Council, Kerur, Badami Taluk, Bijapur District and Another.