VIJAYA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, THE RECRUITMENT AUTHORITY AND THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS (ADMINISTRATION) AND THE NODAL OFFICER, DISTRICT LEVEL RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT Petitioner is a person who claims to be belonging to Scheduled Caste community and who had education right from SSLC up to TCH in educational institutions of Turuvekere in Tumkur District during the years 1973 to 1983. Writ Petitioner had applied to the post of Primary School Teacher in response to a notification dated 20.9.2005 inviting applications for recruitment to the post of Primary School Teachers in Tumkur District issued by the Deputy Director of Public Instructions, Tumkur North District.

(2.) THE petitioner had claimed the benefit of not only the reservation in favour of the Scheduled Caste Community but also a benefit of a person, who had studied in the rural area and the authorities examined her claim on such premise. The petitioner was called for counseling on 3.1.2007 and was subsequent to the counseling given a posting at Government Higher Primary School at Changavara of Sira Taluka, Tumkur District as Assistant Teacher. However, this was short viewed as the recruitment authority and the Deputy Director of Public Instructions, Madhugiri, Tumkur District issued a memorandum bearing No. C3. Pra Shashi. Ne/21/2006 -06 dated 12.7.2007 denying the appointment to the petitioner on the ground that when the petitioner studied in Turuvekere from I Standard to X Standard, the place was not considered to be in rural area and therefore, the petitioner was not entitled for the appointment which had been initially offered to her.

(3.) ON behalf of the respondent/State, adverting to the definition of the 'Rural Candidate' who was a person who had studied from I Standard to X Standard in a school situated in an area, which is other than a large urban area, small urban area or transitional area as indicated in the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 or Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, it was urged that Turuvekere was the rural area at the relevant point of time etc. Ultimately the Tribunal purporting to place reliance on a communication dated 24.4.2007 issued from the Chief Officer of the Pattan Panchayat, Turuvekere to which a reference had been made by the respondents and his communication had been addressed to the Office of the Deputy Director, Department of Public Instructions. Madhugiri indicating that during the period from 1952 to 1986 -87, it was a Municipality and therefore, it cannot be considered as a rural area and accordingly, petitioner was not entitled for claiming the benefit as a candidate from rural area and dismissed the application as per the order dated 3rd July, 2012. The Tribunal also took into consideration the fact that the applicant before it did not dispute that Turuvekere was Municipality from the year 1952 to 1986 -87 and therefore, there was no occasion to interfere.