SHIVAJI S/O. RUDRAPPA NAIK Vs. CHAIRMAN, SHRI. MAHAKALI VIDYA VARDHAK TRUSTS INDEPENDENT P. U. COLLEGE, BELGAUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is M.A. graduate from Karnataka University. He was appointed as part-time Lecturer in Kannada in June 1992 in the college of the respondents. The respondents issued notification calling for the applications for selection and appointment to the post of teaching and non-teaching staff, which included one post of Kannada Lecturer. The petitioner was having requisite qualification and was also already working as part-time Lecturer in the very same subject and he also submitted his application for the said post on 14.06.1994, on considering the said application, the respondent-Institution issued interview letter on 20.06.1994, in which it is directed the petitioner to appear for interview on 28.06.1994. Pursuant to which the committee of the institution considered the case of the petitioner and has appointed him as a full- time Kannada Lecturer by issuing appointment order on 28.06.1994. He was also insisted to pay Rs. 90,000.00 and the same was paid by the petitioner and that has been acknowledged by the respondents by issuing acknowledgment on 29.06.1995. Without issuing any reasons, the petitioner's services were discontinued in the year 2004. Hence, he filed appeal under Sec. 94(1) of the Karnataka Education Act in EAT No. 5/2007 before the District Judge Court at Belgaum. The said appeal came to be allowed and the respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner and also to extend the benefits. The order of the appellate Tribunal was challenged before this Court in W.P. No.65319-20/2009 filed by the respondent-Institution and the petitioner also filed the Writ Petition No. 66096/2009. Both the petitions were heard together and the matters were remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. On examining the case of the petitioner, the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner by its order dated 31.01.2014. Against which, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(2.) The grounds urged by the petitioner are that, the Tribunal has committed an error in not considering the materials produced by the petitioner, such as interview letter, appointment order, experience certificate and other documents to show that he has attended election duty and also worked as valuator of Kannada paper, which clearly show that the petitioner was appointed as permanent Lecturer in Kannada language in the respondent-Institution. The respondents also produced the resolution book and the attendance register and the same has been examined by the Tribunal and they have been relied by passing adverse order against the petitioner. Further, the signatures on the documents relied upon by the respondents should have been referred to the handwriting expert, which has not been done. Without doing the same, adverse order has been passed dismissing the case of the petitioner. In support of his case the petitioner examined two witnesses as PW2 and PW3. They have also supported the case of the petitioner, but their case has not been considered in its totality and while doing so, the Tribunal has committed an error. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Tribunal has ignored the contradictions pointed out by the petitioner in Ex.R22 Acquittance Register. According to the respondent, one Mr. K. K. Sansule was appointed on 15.06.2011 but his name was appearing in the said register for the years 1998-99, 1999-2000. These are the inconsistencies and errors highlighted to the Tribunal, but the Tribunal has not considered the same. Accordingly, the case of the petitioner has been dismissed, which is arbitrary and violative of Art. 16(1) of the Constitution of India.

(3.) The respondent-Institution filed statement of objections, wherein it is contended that the petitioner was not appointed permanent basis, his appointment was on temporary and part- time. Hence, the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal.