K G HADPAD Vs. REGISTRAR KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was appointed to the post of "computer" by respondent -1 to work in the Karnataka university Press as per Annexure --A. He has been working since 12th June 1975. As on the date of the Writ Petition, he has put in 19 years of service in the Press. Petitioner is a B. A. graduate. He has also passed Senior Proof Readers examination. The Deputy Director has recommended the case of the petitioner for promotion to the next higher post. The Press Advisory Board in its meeting held on 17. 2. 1992 recommended that petitioner be promoted as Technical Supervisor, the post which will fall vacant on promotion of JA Periera.

(2.) WHEN things stood thus, the second respondent wrote a letter dated 7. 10. 1993 (Annexure-B3)to the Registrar of Karnataka University requesting him to delete the recommendation made in respect of the petitioner by the Press Advisory Board. Thereafter the Karnataka University issued an advertisement on 17. 1. 1994 as per Annexure-B5 calling for applications for the post of technical Supervisor to fill up the said vacancy by direct recruitment. Then the petitioner made a representation bringing to the notice of the University that his case has already been recommended for promoting as the said post has to be filled up by way of promotion and therefore it is not proper on their part to issue advertisement for direct recruitment to the said post and that too, reserving the said post for Scheduled Caste candidate. When his request was not considered, petitioner was constrained to file a Writ Petition before this Court in W. P. No. 7231/1994 challenging the said advertisement and attempt on the part of the University to fill up the said post by Scheduled Caste candidate. The Writ Petition was heard on merit and this Court observed that there is only one post and that post cannot be reserved for Scheduled Caste and scheduled Tribe in view of the principles laid down by this Court in DR. RAJKUMAR v. GULBARGA UNIVERSITY, AIR1990 Kant 320 , AIR1990 KAR 320 , ILR1990 KAR 2125 which was decided following the decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR1988 SC 959 , 1988 (36 )BLJR269 , JT1988 (1 )SC 496 , 1988 lablc619 , (1988 )II LLJ66 SC , 1988 (1 )SCALE459 , (1988 )2 SCC214 , [1988 ]3 SCR130 , 1988 (3 )SLJ110 (SC ), 1988 (1 )UJ747 (SC ). As the representation made by the petitioner had not yet been considered and disposed of by the University, the Court felt that the proper thing to do was to issue a direction to the University to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. Till his representation is disposed of, a direction was issued not to fill up the said vacancy.

(3.) THE Recruitment Rules for the Industrial Staff of the Karnataka University Press, Dharwar, 1975 provided a pass in the Diploma in Printing and allied subjects at a recognised Polytechnic or a Diploma in Mechanical Engineering with practical experience in the University Press or in recognised large Presses or Firms dealing in Printing machines, for not less than 10 years experience as eligibility criteria for the post of Technical Supervisor. It is not in dispute that the petitioner possess the said qualification. Karnataka University Staff Recruitment statute came to be passed on 16. 1. 1996. The said statute provides that the post of Technical Supervisor has to be filled up by direct recruitment. In pursuance of a direction issued by this Court to consider the representation of the petitioner, University considered the representation in the light of the 1996 statute and by order dated 22. 5. 1998 held that as the said post is to be filled up by direct recruitment, request of the petitioner for promotion was rejected. Before the said order was passed, petitioner had filed a contempt petition in CCC No. 2283/ 1997 complaining of disobedience of the orders passed in W. P. No. 7231/1994. In the said proceedings, the order dated 22. 5. 1998 passed by the University was produced showing compliance of the order in w. P. No. 7231/1994. Accordingly, contempt petition was rejected reserving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the said order. That is how the petitioner has preferred this Writ Petition challenging the order of the University rejecting his request for promotion to the post of technical Supervisor.