STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. K GOVINDAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal is filed against the Judgment dated 15-2-2005 in W. P. No. 1469/2003 which was allowed by the learned single Judge. The appellants are respondents 1 to 3 in the writ petition. The 1st respondent herein is the petitioner and the 2nd respondent is the 4th respondent respectively in the writ petition. The writ petitioner Sri. K. Govindappa was appointed as a lecturer in History in an aided private college owned and managed by the 4th respondent vinayaka Rural Education Society, Hagalavadi, Gubbi Taluk, Tumkur District, with effect from 10-7-1994. However, the Government of Karnataka refused to approve the appointment of the petitioner on the ground that the appointment was in violation of the roster policy and that he was appointed in a post reserved for a scheduled caste candidate. Though the petitioner filed a review petition before the Government contending that there was only a single post of lecturer in history in the college and therefore the reservation policy did not apply to the post to which the petitioner was appointed. The Government rejected the claim of the petitioner. Hence the petitioner filed the writ petition praying for quashing the orders passed by the Government and for directing the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 21-7-1994, the date on which he joined duty, A statement of objection was filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. The respondents contended as follows: even though the management is running only one College, has to maintain the roster while making appointments taking into consideration, the entire cadre of lecturers, irrespective of subjects. The 4th respondent is having one college and there are 6 posts of lecturers. Hence, the post of lecturers in History cannot be considered as a single post. It is mandatory on the part of the management to fill up the vacant post as per the reservation policy of the Government by maintaining roster policy to the cadre of lecturers. However, the learned single Judge rejected the above contention of the respondents and held that since the post of lecturer in History was a single post, the reservation policy did not apply to the appointment to the said post and hence the 4th respondent management was not bound to reserve the post for a member of the Scheduled Caste. In taking the above view, the learned single Judge relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Dr. Chakradhar Paswan v. State of bihar and Ors. AIR1988 SC 959 , 1988 (36 )BLJR269 , JT1988 (1 )SC 496 , 1988 Lablc619 , (1988 )II LLJ66 SC , 1988 (1 )SCALE459 , (1988 )2 SCC214 , [1988 ]3 scr130 , 1988 (3 )SLJ110 (SC ), 1988 (1 )UJ747 (SC ). According to the learned single Judge the appointment of the petitioner was just and legal. Accordingly, the impugned orders passed by the Government were quashed and respondents 1 to 3 were directed to pass appropriate orders regarding approval of the appointment of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the decision of the learned single Judge, respondents 1 to 3 have filed this appeal.

(2.) THE only questions that arise for consideration in this case are:

(3.) IT is not disputed by the appellants (respondents 1 to 3 in the writ petition) that the post of lecturer in History to which the writ petitioner was appointed was a single post of lecturer in the department of History in the college of the 4th respondent. However, it is contended that the said single post of lecturer in History cannot be taken in isolation for the purpose of reservation and that all the posts in the cadre of lecturers in the various departments/subjects in the college have to be taken together for the purpose of reservation. It is further contended that if all the posts in the cadre of lecturers in the various departments/subjects in the college are taken together, the posts to which the writ petitioner was appointed was not a single post and therefore the policy of reservation applied to the appointment to the said post. We do not find any merit in the above contention of the appellants in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Chakradhar Paswan v. State of Bihar and Ors. and the decision of the Full Bench of this court in Dr. Rajkumar v. Gulbarga University ILR1990 KAR 2125. In Dr. Chakradhar paswan's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the High Court of Patna was right in holding that the reservation of post of Deputy Director (Homeopathic) amounted to 100% reservation which was impermissible under Article 16 (4) of the Constitution of India. (Refer paragraph 7 of the Judgment ). In paragraph 16 of the Judgment the Supreme Court clearly stated as follows: