SHIVAYOGI Vs. THE DIRECTOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 though served with notice, they remained absent before the Court.

(2.) The petitioner claims that, he was appointed as an Attender in Durgad High School, which is aided institution run by respondent No.4-Society which post was approved in the year 1967. Thereafter, on 01.06.1982, respondent No.4 has started a new college namely Rural Polytechnic at Haunsbhavi. The petitioner appears to have resigned to the post of Attender and he applied for the post of FDA in the said Rural Polytechnic, Haunsbhavi. Vide appointment order dated 31.12.1984, he was appointed as FDA in the Rural Polytechnic by respondent No.4. At that time it appears the petitioner was over aged. On 01.01.1985 he joined the duty in Rural Polytechnic, Haunsbhavi. Subsequently, on 05.02.2001, the Government was pleased to extend the benefit of grant-in-aid to the said Rural Polytechnic also run by respondent No.4. In pursuance of the grant-in-aid provided to the said institution, respondent No.4 has sent a proposal for approval of certain appointments including the appointment of the present petitioner on 28.03.2003. The respondent No.1 has approved certain appointments except the appointment of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was over aged at the time of initial appointment and there is no ground to relax the said age limit. Subsequently, the Management of respondent No.4 found that similarly placed staff who are working in Dr. Ambedkar Institute of Technology, Bangalore who were also over aged at the time of their initial appointment, the Management of the said Dr. Ambedkar Institute recommended for approval of the post of those persons for grant-in-aid and the Government vide its proceedings in ED No.136 TAIMKA 91 dated 19th August 1993 relaxed the age of those over aged persons and admitted them to grant-in-aid. Having come to know about the same, respondent No.4 once again sent a proposal so far as the petitioner is concerned bringing it to the notice of the Government about the order passed in respect of the said Dr. Ambedkar Institute, vide its proposal dated 28.03.2003. The respondent No.1 again passed an order on 17.02.2005 reiterating that there is no rule as such to relax the age limit in order to admit the petitioner to the grant-in-aid. Accordingly, an endorsement was issued as per Annexure-A which is called in question before this Court by way of this writ petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner drawn my attention to Annexure-N which is the order passed by the Government in respect of Dr. Ambedkar Institute of Technology, wherein the approval was granted for the posts and the persons relaxing the age of those persons. The said order was dated 19th August 1993 in ED No.136 TAIMKA 91, wherein the Government has stated that the Government was pleased to approve all the appointments made in Dr. Ambedkar Institute of Technology, Bangalore prior to 1992 particularly, at Item No. E. The Government was pleased to relax the age limits of the over aged persons. The said portion of the order of the Government reads thus: