STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. PRAVEEN SALDANHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 01.03.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.49592/2012.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are, respondent No.1 herein (petitioner) was appointed as Lecturer in Economics in respondent No.3 -college in terms of the appointment order dated 05.01.2001 issued by respondent No.2 and respondent No.1 reported for duty w.e.f. 06.01.2001. Respondent No.3 addressed a letter dated 08.01.2001 to appellant No.5 seeking approval of the appointment of respondent No.1 as Lecturer in UGC pay scale. The said request was rejected on 14.06.2001. Against such rejection, respondent No.1 filed W.P.No.31108/2001, which was allowed by remitting the matter to the Government for reconsidering the proposal of respondent No.2 for approval of appointment of respondent No.1 in the light of Government Order dated 21.07.1992. The order passed in the said writ petition was taken in appeal by the State Government in W.A.No.3271/2002, which came to be dismissed. In the meantime, a contempt petition was filed by respondent No.1 and during pendency of the contempt petition, appellant No.4 passed an order approving the appointment of respondent No.1 with grant-in-aid w.e.f. 25.01.2006. However, after several rounds of litigation, appellant No.1 passed an order dated 11.09.2012 granting the benefit of UGC Pay scale to respondent No.1 with w.e.f. 25.01.2006. Not being satisfied, respondent No.1 filed W.P.No.49592/2012 seeking a direction to the Government to approve his appointment in the UGC pay scale w.e.f. 06.01.2001 and also for consequential reliefs. The said writ petition was allowed by setting aside the order dated 11.09.2012 insofar it reckons the service of respondent No.1 w.e.f. 25.01.2006 and substituting the said date as 06.01.2001. Against the said order passed by the learned Single Judge, the present appeal has been filed.

(3.) Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that respondent No.2, though a minority institution, has not obtained prior permission from the Government before filling up the post of Lecturer. Since the institution has not followed the proper procedure, the appointment of respondent No.1 is arbitrary for non-compliance of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India. He further submits that the appointment of respondent No.1 is contrary to the Government Order dated 01.03.2001 since there was a total ban on appointment by direct recruitment and any such appointment will be treated as non- grant-in-aid post. In the instant case, respondent No.2 - institution had not taken prior permission from the Government for filling up the post and therefore, it is to be treated as non-grant-in-aid post. He also submits that the learned Single Judge ought not to have directed grant of UGC pay scale to respondent No.1 w.e.f. 06.01.2001 and the effective date for consideration should have been left to the decision of the State Government. With these grounds, he submits that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.