DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER Vs. H K SHIVASHANKARAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Divisional Commissioner and the Joint Director of Public Instructions are before us challenging the order dated 12-9-2001 made in Application No. 4932 of 1996 by the Karnataka administrative Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal' ).

(2.) FACTS in brief are as follows.--The Joint Director of Public Instructions called for the names of eligible candidates from the employment exchange for appointment as Assistant Master, Grade II in High Schools in 1994. The District Employment Exchange sponsored the names of eligible candidates along with the names of the respondent. Respondent sought for appointment under category - Backward Class group 'b'. According to him, his total income is less than Rs. 10,000/ -. Respondent was selected for the post of Assistant Master. Appointment order was issued on 30-8-1994. After appointment, a certificate produced by the respondent claiming Backward Class Group 'b' was sent for verification to the District Caste and Income Verification Committee. The Committee conducted a detailed enquiry. In the enquiry it was noticed that the respondent is a son of one h. K Kalappaji and Putta Gowramma, that Kalappaji is serving as Teacher in the Government junior College, Halli Mysore, Holenarasipura Taluk, and that his annual income is Rs. 60,000/ -. Respondent had stated before the Committee that his grandmother Smt. Sannamma had taken him on adoption in 1985, that he was under the custody of the adopted mother, that his adopted mother's income was less than Rs. 10,000/ -. Verification Committee came to a conclusion that only for the purpose of getting appointment as Assistant Master-respondent was got adopted by his grandmother and that he has suppressed the facts. The Committee rejected his application for issue of verification certificate. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent preferred an appeal. Appeal stood rejected. Thereafter, respondent filed an Application No. 4932 of 1996 before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, bangalore. After hearing, the Tribunal has chosen to allow the application. This order is challenged by the State in this petition before us.

(3.) NOTICE was issued. Respondent entered appearance. Statement of objections is filed.