LAKITHA K YADWAD Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 01.10.2009 impugned at Annexure-K to the petition. In that light, the petitioner is seeking issue of direction to consider her claim for absorption to the vacant post of lecturer in Political Science in the fourth respondent College in terms of the proviso to Rule 2(c) of the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Absorption of Persons working as part time lecturers in the Aided Educational Institutions) (Special) Rules, 2003 ('the Rules' for short).

(2.) The petitioner contends that she possesses M.A., degree in Political Science and is also a gold medalist. She was appointed as part-time lecturer in Political Science by the fourth respondent College during the academic year 1991-92 and it is her further case that she has continued to work uninterruptedly and even as on today, she is working in the same position. The case of the petitioner is that during the year 1993-94 and 1994-95, the fourth respondent College themselves had discontinued her service for the said two academic years and has thereafter continued her and she is presently also working. At an earlier point when the petitioner was intending to seek the benefit under the Rules 2003 and since the provision contained in Section 2 (c) thereof was unconscionable, the petitioner had assailed the same before this Court in W.P.No.6658/2007. This Court though did not accept the challenge to the said Rule, had by its order dated 15.04.2009 directed the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner keeping in view the proviso to Rule 2 (c) (iv) and (v) of the Rules. On reconsideration being made, the endorsement dated 01.10.2009 in the form of order has been passed declining the claim of the petitioner for absorption. It is in that view, the petitioner is before this Court.

(3.) The respondents have filed their objection statement seeking to sustain the endorsement issued by them. It is contended that since the benefit is not available to the petitioner since she not having worked during the academic years 1993-94 or 1994-1995, she cannot claim absorption under the said Rules and as such, the rejection of her claim is justified. In that view, it is contended that the petition is liable to be dismissed.