HANUMANTHA NEELAKANTA PATIL Vs. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Appeal is presented by the appellant against the order of dismissal of Writ Petition No. 1543 of 1978 in which he had sought for the issue of Writ of Mandamus directing respondent-1 or respondent-3 to consider his case for approval of his appointment as Assistant Master in Kannada on the establishment of S.V. High School, Kuppelur, Ranebennur Taluk.

(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, are as follow : The appellant holds a Bachelors Degree of Karnataka University with Sociology and Kannada as major and minor optional subjects respectively. During the academic year 1975 the the Management of Shri Basaveswara Vidya Vardhaka Sangha, Kuppelur (respondent-4) invited applications for the post of a Kannada teacher on the establishment of the S.V. High School, Kuppelur. The Selection Committee constituted in accordance with the provisions of the Grant-in-Aid Code (shortly called as the Code) selected the appellant for the post of Assistant Master in Kannada and Drawing and issued the appointment order (vide Annexure-A) dated 10-9-1975. Under the Code every appointment requires the approval of the Deputy Director concerned. Accordingly, respondent, 4 the Management, sought the approval of the Deputy Director of the post offered to the appellant. The Deputy Director, by his order dated 16-10-1978 (Exhibit-B) refused to approve the appointment of the appellant, and the relevant portion of his order reads :

(3.) The only contention urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant in this appeal is that according to the relevant rules prescribing the conditions of eligibility for appointment of High School Teachers the minimum qualification required is Bachelor's Degree with the concerned subject as one of the optional subjects, but respondent-1 had refused to approve the appointment of the appellant on the ground that he had studied Kannada as minor optional subject and not as a major optional subject in the Degree level and, therefore, the order of respondent-1 not approving the appointment was arbitrary.