CANARA HIGH SCHOOL ASSOCIATION Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT petition by a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, claiming the right of minorities to establish and administer educational Institutions of its choice in accordance with the provisions of Article 30 of the Constitution of India, who has questioned the action of the educational authorities of the State of Karnataka in disapproving the appointment of lecturers in the subjects of statistics and economics, appointing petitioners 2 and 3 for the posts by the first petitioner-management in terms of the order dated 30-5-2000 (Annexure-G) passed by the director of pre-university education and order dated 23-3-2000 (Annexure-H) also passed by the very authority, apprising the petitioners that the appointments are not approved for the reason that the first petitioner society was required to follow the policy of reservation and that in terms of the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes/scheduled tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation in Appointments etc.) Act 1990 (for short, the 1990 Act) and the Government Order No. ED 227 Sep. 94 dated 21-4-1995, posts were required to be filled up by appointing persons belonging to Schedule Castes/ tribe communities as backlog vacancies.

(2.) IT is not only these orders but also the common appellate order dated 19-12-2003 (Annexure-L to the writ petition) passed by the Government of Karnataka under Section 131 of the Karnataka Education Act (for short, the Act), dismissing both the appeals of the management for the reasons that the petitioners' contention that the first petitioner-society is not 'state' for the purpose of Article 16 (4) of the Constitution of India. being a minority owned Institution, is not tenable, as the institution is receiving aid; that its claim to be treated as Konkani linguistic minority institution cannot be acceded to for the reason that Canara pre-university college, where the appointments were made has not been recognized as a linguistic minority college by the government and therefore it cannot claim any exemption in the matter of reservation in appointment and further that the stand of the management that insisting on reservation to fill up posts of lecturers in statistics and economics in the college amounts to 100% reservation and therefore the petitioners would not come within the roster system and the policy of reservation is not tenable as the provisions for reservation, if should have been worked in respect of the cadre of lecturers in common to all subjects, the theory of 100% reservation will not hold water.

(3.) IT is aggrieved by these orders, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking for quashing these orders and for a direction to the respondents to approve the appointments so that the petitioners 2 and 3 can draw aided salary. In this petition, the petitioners have sought for the following prayers :