B L GEETHA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as Sociology lecturer in the Respondent/College by its Appointment Letter dated 30.06.1992. At the time of appointment, the respondent/College was admitted to grant-in-aid vide Government Order dated 30.10.1995 and the grant-inaid was extended to the teaching and non-teaching staff of the College. The persons who were appointed subsequent to the petitioner were extended the benefit of salary grant, but the same has been denied to the petitioner without there being any reason. Thereafter, the 6th respondent was transferred/ deputed to the 5th respondent/College to the place of the petitioner by an Order dated 12.11.2001. The same was challenged before the Commissioner for Collegiate Education at Bangalore in Appeal No.9/2006. The said appeal was filed under Section 130 of Karnataka Education Act 1983 praying to set aside the Order dated 12.11.2001. The said appeal came to be dismissed by its Order dated 19.09.2007. The same is impugned herein. The grounds taken by the petitioner for filing appeal No.9/2006 are as follows:

(2.) The first ground is that the respondents have referred the petitioner as she belongs to 'Vokkaliga' community for the purpose of age qualification as per the Order dated 03.10.1981, the maximum age limit to apply for the post was 35 years for general merits. Since the petitioner belongs to Vokkaliga community, her candidature was treated as general merit and she was treated over aged. On this ground alone, the case of the petitioner has been rejected. It is submitted that the petitioner was not appointed under the General Merit not claimed as such and the said community comes under the category of OBC for which the maximum age limit was 38 years. The petitioner got appointed within the qualified age. Hence, she prays to set aside the impugned Order.

(3.) The second ground for rejection of the appeal is that the petitioner secured 51.8% in her Masters Degree and has not passed any NET/SLET examination. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is not the case of the petitioner that she has not passed the NET/SLET examination. She is working as Sociology lecturer from the date of her appointment i.e., from 30.06.1992 and now she has attained the age of superannuation. At this juncture, it is not proper for the respondent to refer all these grounds. Hence, he prays to set aside the Order dated 19.09.2007.