SANTHOSH D. NAYAK Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, Assistant Teacher (CBZ) of sixth respondent is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by an endorsement dtd. 3/10/2021 (Annexure-AB) whereunder the approval of petitioner's appointment in the sixth respondentInstitution is rejected on the ground that the minority status granted to the sixth respondent-Institution is withdrawn under an endorsement dtd. 25/1/2018 (Annexure-AD).

(2.) The sixth respondent-Institution was granted minority status in the year 1994. In pursuance to the request of the sixth respondent seeking permission to fill up the post of Assistant Teacher, Science (CBZ), the second respondent accorded permission under Memorandum dtd. 15/7/2015 (Annexure-S) to fill up the post of Assistant Teacher, Science (CBZ) and in the said order itself, it was made clear that, since the sixth respondent-Institution is minority Institution, reservation or roaster would not apply. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher by sixth respondent's appointment order dtd. 1/9/2015 (Annexure-P) and the sixth respondent forwarded the proposal for approval of petitioner's appointment under letter dtd. 3/9/2015 (Annexure-R). The said proposal was kept pending and in the meanwhile, showcase notice dtd. 13/7/2017 (Annexure-V) was issued to the sixth respondent calling upon to explain as to why minority status granted should not be withdrawn on the ground that the students strength of Konkani language community is reduced to 1.88% as against the minimum requirement of 25%. The sixth respondent is said to have submitted its explanation, but the respondents under endorsement dtd. 25/1/2018 (Annexure-AD) withdrew the minority status accorded to the sixth respondent. Thereafter, under endorsement dtd. 30/10/2021 (Annexure-AB), the proposal for approval of the petitioner's appointment is rejected only on the ground that the minority status granted to sixth respondent is withdrawn, hence the roaster would apply to the appointment made by the sixth respondent-Institution. Hence, it was asked to make appointment in accordance with the reservation/roaster and to submit fresh proposal. Questioning the same petitioner is before this Court.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel Sri.M.P.Srikanth for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate Smt.N.Anitha for respondent Nos.1 to 5. There is no representation for the respondent No.6. Perused the writ petition papers.