DALIT SENA KARNATAKA Vs. KARNATAK UNIVERSITY DHARWAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CLAIMING to be the champions of the cause of the Dalits, the petitioner Association has filed this petition with prayer for quashing the advertisement dated 30th of September, 1996 and the corrigendum dated 20th of October, 1996, Annexures-J and Kwith a further prayer to direct the respondent-University to re-advertise the posts by following the Roster System as contemplated under Article 16 (4) of the Constitution of India and by clearly indicating the posts which are reserved and the posts which are not reserved in the fresh advertisement notification.

(2.) THE Government of Karnataka is stated to have issued Roster system vide notifications issued from time to time, that is, 12-2-1989, 27-2-1989, 5-11-1994, 13-1-1995 and 21-6-1995. The said Roster System has been directed to be followed by all educational institutions including the Universities. In the year 1994, the Registrar of the respondent-University is stated to have issued an advertisement with respect to the posts sought to be filled without indicating the posts which had been reserved, except showing the vacancy. It is contended that such a procedure facilitated the University Authorities to -. make appointments at their discretion, with the result the candidates belonging to the weaker sections of the society apprehended that they. would not get due representation. Such a procedure allegedly confers unguided powers upon the selection Committee to make appointments in an arbitrary manner. The syndicate and other persona associated with the selection process are apprehended to be capable of practising foul play by selecting persons of their own choice. The advertisement issued is allegedly against the mandate of Article 16 (4) of the Constitution, resulting in deprivation of the scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to get due representation. As the representations submitted by the petitioner-Association are stated to have not been considered by the Vice-Chancellor as well as the Chancellor, it was forced to file the present petition.

(3.) DURING the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner filed an IA sceking amendment to the writ petition by incorporating the plea for declaring the Government Order dated 22nd of February, 1994, Annexure-L to be unconstitutional being contrary to the decision of this court in Dr. Rajkumar and Others v Gulbarga University and Others. Another application appears to have been filed with prayer for irnpleading all the Lecturers, who had been selected consequent upon the issuance of the impugned advertisement notice.