S. MAHADESHA, S/O. SHIVAMALLAPPA AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-1, THE COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS IN KARNATAKA, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-1 AND THE DEPUTY D

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, assailing the correctness of the order dated 12/06/2012 passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in Application Nos.8367, 8372, 8374, 8375, 8378, 8379, 8382, 8386, 8388, 8390, 8393, 8395 of 2005 vide Annexure -A, have presented these petitions. The applicants - petitioners have filed their applications before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, assailing the correctness of the endorsement dated 25.10.2005 issued by the 3rd respondent bearing No. CB:(C -3,G -6): 212:Prashashi.Nemaka:10:98 -99 vide Annexure -A7 and also seeking direction to the 3rd respondent therein to select and appoint them in the vacant posts and also to prepare the selection list in accordance with the notification for recruitment and issue appointment orders, contending that, they had applied for the Posts of Assistant Masters/Primary School Teachers in Mandya District in response to the Notification dated 25.2.1999 issued by the third respondent therein and the last date for filing the application is 31.3.1999. The said notification was challenged by some persons in W.P.Nos.16023 to 16072/1999 before this Court so far as it relates to two conditions stipulated therein that, the applications should be presented in person by the candidates on or before 5.00 p.m. on 31.3.1999 and that the applicant should be ordinarily resident of Mandya District. This Court by its order dated 28.7.1999, has set aside those conditions with a direction to provide an opportunity to any other applicant who wants to apply against the notification within the prescribed time. It is further contended by the applicants -petitioners that, during the pendency of the said petitions, a provision select list was published on 14.6.1999 and in view of the order passed by this Court dated 28.7.1999, another notification was issued extending the time prescribed for making the applications up to 5.10.1999. It is the further contention of the applicants - petitioners that, their names had appeared in the provisional select list published on 14.6.1999 and subsequently, the second respondent published the select list on 4.7.2000. The same was challenged by some of the candidates in application Nos.250 to 277/2000 and connected cases as regards denial of rural weightage in view of the Government letter dated 23.5.2000 The Tribunal by order dated 2.6.2001 set aside the clarification issued by the Government and the select list dated 4.7.2000 with a direction to prepare the fresh select list without giving rural weightage. The said order was challenged in W.P. Nos. 26943 to 26945/2001 and connected, which was disposed of by this Court on 11.9.2001 with certain directions. The said order was challenged before the Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 2288 to 2290/2002 and connected cases. The said Civil appeals were disposed of on 23.8.2005 setting aside the directions issued in the order dated 11.9.2001 in W.P. Nos. 26943 to 26945/2001 and connected cases with an observation that, the case of all those who are eligible shall be considered in respect of the consequential vacancies and the cases of respondents shall be taken up on the basis of their merit to decide whether they can be appointed. In obedience of the order passed by the Apex Court, respondents have reconsidered the matter afresh and filled up the vacancies in respect of two candidates who have the requisite qualification and merit and the cases of petitioners have been declined holding that they are less meritorious. Thereafter, the applicants -petitioners have submitted their representation requesting to consider their case. Pursuant to the said representation, third respondent has issued an endorsement dated 25.10.2005, which is unsustainable and therefore, liable to be quashed with a direction to the third respondent to select and appoint them in the vacant posts.

(2.) THE Tribunal, after hearing the counsel appearing for both the parties and after going through the grounds urged by the petitioners in their applications, the stand taken up by the respondents in their objections and by assigning valid reasons in paras -7 and 8 of its order, has dismissed those applications. Being aggrieved by the said order, these petitioners have presented these writ petitions, seeking appropriate reliefs as stated supra.

(3.) THE submission of the learned counsel for petitioners Sri. S.N. Aswathnarayan, at the outset, is that, the Tribunal ought to have directed the respondents to verify as to whether there is vacancies and ought to have directed to consider their cases sympathetically, for the reason that, the Apex Court has directed that, the cases of all those who are eligible shall be considered in respect of the consequential vacancies and the cases of these petitioners shall be taken up for appointment on the basis of their merit. But this aspect of the matter has not been looked into or considered by the Tribunal or atleast issued any directions to that effect. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal may be modified with a direction to the Government to reconsider their case, subject to availability of vacancies.