S R KATTI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, questioning the legality and validity of the impugned Notification dated 5. 1. 2007 issued by first respondent vide Annexure-A as the same is illegal and contrary to law and facts, has presented this writ petition. Further, petitioner has sought to direct the 1st respondent to appoint a candidate as Director of the Institute in accordance with the Cadre and Recruitment Regulations of 1998.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that, second respondent has been appointed as Director of the Karnataka state Sericulture Research and Development Institute (in short institute) for the period of five years on 24. 2. 2001. After the expiry of the said period of five years, once again, he has been continued as director of the sard Institute until further orders, by notification dated 23. 2. 2006. Be that as it may. The first respondent herein has issued notification dated 3. 5. 2006 vide Annexure-D, cancelling the notification issued on 23. 2. 2006 continuing the 2nd respondent in the post of Director of the Institute and appointed the Commissioner for sericulture Development and Director of Sericulture as In-charge director of the said Institute. When things stood thus, first respondent has issued the impugned Notification dated 5. 1. 2007, continuing second respondent as the Director of the said Institute. The said notification issued by the first respondent is contrary to the Cadre and Recruitment Regulations. The relevant provision of Cadre and recruitment Regulations stipulates for appointment of a candidate below aged of 50 years as Director of the Institute by direct recruitment by calling for applications. Without following the said procedure, first respondent has continued the second respondent as the Director of the said Institute vide Notification dated 5. 1. 2007 and contrary to the existing Regulations as on the date of issuing the said notification. Therefore, assailing the correctness of Annexure-A and seeking appropriate direction as referred above, petitioner felt necessitated to present this writ petition.

(3.) THE principal submission canvassed by learned Counsel appearing for petitioner is that, the impugned notification issued by first respondent continuing second respondent as the Director of karnataka State Sericulture Research and Development Institute is contrary to the Cadre and Recruitment Regulations of the Institute. According to the Cadre and Recruitment Regulations of the Institute, candidate has to be appointed by direct recruitment by calling for applications and one of the criteria is, a candidate should have five years experience in programming and directing research at higher level and age limit is fixed 50 years. In the instant case, second respondent is not eligible as per his age and first respondent has committed a grave error, much less illegality in issuing notification, specifically stating that second respondent has been continued as director till regular appointment has been made, without reference to the earlier notification dated 3. 5. 2006, wherein the services of second respondent has been discontinued and the Commissioner for sericulture Development and Director of Sericulture has been appointed as In-charge Director of the Institute and also without adhering the upper age limit as held by the Apex Court and this Court in similar matters. Therefore, learned counsel appearing for petitioner has submitted that, appointment of second respondent in the guise of continuing him as Director of the Institute is contrary to law and it blocks the career prospects of the petitioner, who is fully qualified to be appointed as Director of the Institute according to Cadre and recruitment Regulations and therefore, the impugned notification issued by the first respondent vide Annexure-A as referred above is liable to be set aside.