SANGANAGOUDA SHANKARAGOUDA MULKI PATIL Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 15. 12. 1998 passed by the deputy Director of Public Instructions refusing to accord approval to the appointment of the petitioner as Drawing Teacher under the 6th respondent-Institution as affirmed in appeal by order dated 17. 07. 1999 passed by the Director of Public Instructions. Petitioner has also assailed the order dated 13. 05. 2002 passed by the Principal Secretary to Government (Primary and secondary Education) rejecting the revision petition filed by him invoking the provisions under section 131 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 (for short 'the Act;)

(2.) THE facts that are relevant for the purpose of disposal of this case can be set out as under. Petitioner was appointed as Drawing Teacher under the 6th respondent - Institution on 28. 07. 1998 and a proposal was sent by the Institution for approval of his appointment. The director of Public Instructions - respondent no. 4 herein rejected the proposal on the ground that the post was reserved for Scheduled Caste and appointment of a candidate belonging to General merit was impermissible. The authorities called upon the Institution to fill up the post by appointing a person belonging to Schedule Caste. Petitioner has produced the communication dated 22. 06. 1999 vide Annexure-E, issued by the Block Education Officer, Hubli, whereunder the 6th respondent was called upon to submit a proposal for approval of the appointment of one sri. Hegappa Somappa Lamani who was appointed on 24. 02. 1999 in the place of the petitioner after the services of the petitioner were terminated on 18. 02. 1999. The petitioner approached the appellate Authority namely the Director of Public Instructions by filing an appeal invoking the provisions of Section 130 of the Act. The Appellate Authority by order dated 17. 07. 1999 dismissed the appeal by a cryptic order holding that as the Institution has not maintained the roster separately for teaching and non-teaching posts the order passed by the Deputy. Director of public Instructions could not be found fault with. Aggrieved by this order, petitioner filed a revision petition invoking the provisions of Section 131 of the Act before the State Government. The revision petition is also dismissed on 13. 05. 2002 holding that as per the report of the Deputy director of Public Instructions dated 09. 8. 1999, the post in question was set apart and reserved for Scheduled Caste candidate and therefore the same had to be filled up by appointing the candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste and in view of the said report and for the reasons mentioned therein the grievance made by the petitioner could not be entertained. It is in this background the petitioner is before this Court assailing the validity and the correctness of the order dated 15. 12. 1998 passed by the Deputy Director of Public Instructions vide Annexure-B as affirmed by the Appellate and the Revisional Authorities and further seeking a direction to the respondent-authorities to reinstate the petitioner in service as Drawing Teacher and for a consequential direction to the respondent-authorities to approve his appointment as Drawing teacher under the 6th respondent-Institution.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has contended that the post of Drawing Teacher to which the petitioner was appointed was a single cadre post and could not be reserved. It is his contention that such a reservation would tantamount to effecting 100% reservation which is impremissible as per the constitutional frame-work and as held by the catena of decisions of the apex Court. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court rendered in W. P. NO. 2898/1996 Disposed of on 06. 07. 1996 (2898/1996 Disposed of on 6-7-1996 ). Reliance is placed on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Post graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh v. Faculty Association and ors. 1998 IV AD (SC )70 , AIR1998 SC 1767 , 1998 (3 )CTC413 , (1998 )3 GLR1862 , JT1998 (3 )SC 223 , 1998 (2 )MPLJ1 , 1998 (II )OLR (SC )70 , 1998 (2)SCALE772 , (1998 )4 SCC1 , [1998 ]2 SCR845 and in the case of Dr. Raj Kumar v. Gulbarga university AIR1990 Kant 320 , AIR1990 KAR 320 , ILR1990 KAR 2125.