Back
2023 Supreme(Kar) 449
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
PRASANNA B. VARALE, KRISHNA S. DIXIT, JJ.
Mr. M. Manju Prasad, S/o. Mr. M. Muniyappa - Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka, By Its Chief Secretary, Vidhana Soudha, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Appeal No. 797 Of 2023 (S-RES)
Decided On : 21-09-2023
For the Appellant : Sri. Swamy N. B. N.
For the Respondents: Smt. Niloufer Akbar.
Backlog vacancies earmarked for downtrodden communities cannot be left unfilled indefinitely and must be filled in accordance with the Reservation Policy and the provisions of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.
Headnote:
Reservation Policy - The judgment discusses the Reservation Policy of the State and the importance of filling up backlog vacancies earmarked for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Backward Communities. The court refers to various letters, directions, and judgments that emphasize the need to fill up these vacancies and ensure preferential treatment for these communities. The court also highlights the provisions of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and their relevance to the case.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a writ petition seeking a direction to fill the backlog vacancies earmarked for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Backward Communities in a government institution. The learned Single Judge disposed of the petition without granting substantive relief but allowed the appellant to make a representation. The appellant appealed against this order, arguing that keeping the backlog vacancies unfilled would go against the Reservation Policy and the provisions of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. The Court found that the statistical data regarding the backlog vacancy position was available on record and that the impugned order suffered from misdirection in law. The Court referred to various letters, directions, and judgments that emphasized the importance of filling up backlog vacancies. The Court set aside the impugned order and issued a writ of mandamus to undertake the Backlog Recruitment Drive in all government departments and institutions within six months.
Finding of the Court:
The Court analyzed the arguments of the appellant and the respondents, as well as the relevant documents and judgments. The Court found that the impugned order suffered from misdirection in law and that the backlog vacancies, being earmarked for downtrodden communities, cannot be left unfilled indefinitely. The Court referred to various letters, directions, and judgments that emphasized the importance of filling up backlog vacancies and ensuring preferential treatment for these communities. The Court also noted that the government should conduct itself as a bonafide and scrupulous litigant and should not seek dismissal of citizens' causes without considering their intrinsic worth.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that backlog vacancies earmarked for downtrodden communities cannot be left unfilled indefinitely and that the impugned order suffered from misdirection in law. The Court referred to various letters, directions, and judgments that emphasized the importance of filling up backlog vacancies and ensuring preferential treatment for these communities. The Court issued a writ of mandamus to undertake the Backlog Recruitment Drive in all government departments and institutions within six months.
Result: The appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside, and the appellant's writ petition is favored. A writ of mandamus is issued to the respondents to undertake or cause to be undertaken the Backlog Recruitment Drive in all government departments and institutions within six months.
JUDGMENT :
The appellant has preferred this intra court appeal for calling in question a learned Single Judge's order dated 06.06.2023 whereby his W.P.No.17537/2022 (S-RES) came to be disposed off without granting substantive relief as sought for therein. Of course, the learned Judge has permitted the appellant to make an appropriate representation and that if one is made, the 3rd Respondent-Principal Secretary, Department of Medical Education, GOK should consider the same within an outer limit of eight weeks.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant seeks to falter the impugned order on the ground that: The statistical data as to the vacancy position was available on record; backlog recruitment is a part of Reservation Policy of the State; if backlog vacancies are kept unfilled, that would defeat the State Policy of uplifting the downtrodden and that would militate against the provisions of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India in the light of a catena of decisions of the Apex Court. So arguing he seeks the setting aside of impugned order and allowing of the writ petition.
3. Learned Additional Government Advocate appears for Respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3; learned Panel Counsel Sri K.Sreedhar is requested to appear for the 4th Respondent-Dental College & Research Institute. Appeal is resisted on the reasoning of the learned Single Judge who has permitted the appellant to give an appropriate representation and timeline is prescribed for such consideration.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the appeal papers, we are inclined to grant indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons:
(a) The prayer in the writ petition was essentially for a direction to the respondents to undertake the exercise of filling of the backlog vacancies that are earmarked for the members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes & Backward Communities, in the Respondent-Institution, within a time frame. The learned Single Judge proceeded on an erroneous factual premise that the statistical data as to the backlog vacancy position was not available when it was very much on record. That was not the defense of the respondents to oppose the writ petition. Thus the impugned order suffers from the vice of misdirection in law and therefore is liable to be voided, as rightly argued by counsel for the appellant.
(b) It is pertinent to reproduce what the official respondents who happen to be answering parties had stated in paragraphs 4 to 8 in their Statement of Objections filed on 30.11.2022. They read as under:
4. It is submitted that, on the receipt of the notice dated 18-03.2022 from Mrs. N.B.Lakshmi, Advocate issued a notice to 2nd Respondent for intimating the Dean and Director, Government Dental College and Research Institute, Bangalore have not been filled backlog posts in Government Dental College and Research Institute, Bangalore since 2007 and she requested to direct the college to fill the same within a time frame, based on the said notice being in accordance with the direction from the 2nd Respondent letter dated 09-05-2022.
5. It is further submitted that the cabinet sub-committee had issued a direction to all the departments to fill the backlog posts within three months from 29-01-2022 as per proceedings of the Meeting of the Cabinet Sub-Committee constituted to supervise the filling up of backlog posts belonging to Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe added by the Hon'ble Chairmanship of the Minister for Heavy and Medium Irrigation Department.
6. It is further submitted that, the Writ Petition No.100505/2022 order dated 06-07-2022, Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka had issued a direction to the Department of Social Welfare to ensure that the backlog vacancies pertaining to Schedule Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Communities shall be filled expeditiously as possible in view of the clearance given by the Finance Department.
7. It is further submitted that the Government Letter No.SWD 379 SLP
