IMPORTANT POINT
Appointment – Once entire selection process is found to be vitiated due to fraud, collusion and manipulation, Court cannot direct for appointment of a particular candidate who is also seeking appointment pursuant to that very selection process/recruitment process.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 24.09.2020 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka, Bench at Dharwad, in W.A. No. 100066 of 2020 by which the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the appellant herein – original respondent No.10, the appellant herein – original respondent No.10 -Reshma Sultana has preferred the present appeal.

2. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under :-

2.1 That respondent No. 10 herein – Ilyas Ahmed Patwegar – original writ petitioner applied for the post of Urdu Teacher in Nehru Arts, Science and Commerce Degree College, Hubli, run by Anjuman-E-Islam Education Board. He was appointed on 1.7.2002. Later, an advertisement was published in the local newspaper on 26.8.2007 calling for the filling up of posts of Urdu Lecturers in the same College. The original writ petitioner also submitted his application.

Interviews for different posts were conducted on 23.10.2007. The Management informed the Commissioner of Collegiate Education that in respect of Urdu subject, it was resolved to appoint a highly knowledgeable subject expert and to seek his opinion before making any appointment and accordingly Urdu Teacher’s appointment was postponed. On 13.3.2009 the Management informed the original writ petitioner that the appellant herein -Reshma Sultana has been appointed as Urdu Lecturer. The management sought approval for her appointment from the second respondent -Commissioner of Collegiate Education. The second respondent -Commissioner of Collegiate Education sought management’s explanation as to how the appellant herein could have been appointed without seeking opinion of a subject expert. However, in January 2010, the Commissioner of Collegiate Education approved the appointment of the appellant herein.

2.2 Feeling aggrieved, the original writ petitioner filed the writ petition before the learned Single Judge. By a detailed judgment and order, the learned Single Judge quashed the appointment of the original respondent No. 10 – appellant herein and also issued further directions to the management to forward necessary documents and proposals to the concerned authorities for the purpose of appointing the original writ petitioner as a full-time Lecturer in Urdu subject.

2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge quashing the appointment of the appellant as an Urdu Lecturer and issuing the direction to forward necessary documents and proposals to the concerned authorities for the purpose of appointing the original writ petitioner as a full-time Lecturer in Urdu subject, the appellant herein preferred the writ appeal before the Division Bench. By the impugned judgment and order, the Division Bench has dismissed the said appeal and has confirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge.

2.4 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench dismissing the writ appeal and confirming the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, quashing the appointment of the appellant herein as an Urdu Lecturer, the original respondent No. 10 before the learned Single Judge and the appellant before the Division Bench of the High Court, whose appointment has been set aside by the learned Single Judge confirmed by the Division Bench of High Court has preferred the present appeal.

3. While issuing notice on 08.01.2021, this Court passed the following order:-

“XXXXXXXXXX

Issue notice limited to the question as to whether the High Court in a writ petition, after holding the appointment of the petitioner to be not valid, could have directed for appointment of respondent No.10 who was neither recommended by the Committee nor approved by the competent authority for the selection in pursuance of 2007 recruitment, returnable within six weeks.”

4. Therefore, the short q