Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 31855

: 1 :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.113088/2014 (S-PRO)
BETWEEN:

Shri Neelkantha
S/o. Sugappa Govindraddi,
Age 40 years,
working as Assistant Teacher
In Science at Vidyaranya High School,
Hebballli Agasi, Dharwad,
Resident of Tapovannagar,
Haliyal Road, Dharwad-580 003.
... Petitioner

(By Shri S.N. Rajendra, Advocate)

AND:

1.
The State of Karnataka,

Rep. by its Principal Secretary,

Primary & Secondary Education Department,

M.S. Building, Bengaluru-01.

2.
The Commissioner of Public Instructions,

Nrupathunga Road, K.R. Circle,

Bengaluru-01.

3.
The Director of Secondary Education,

Office at the Commissioner of

: 2 :
Public Instructions,

Nrupatunga Road, K.R. Circle,

Bengaluru-01.

4.
The Commissioner of Public Instructions,

Karnataka College Road, DIET Campus,

Dharwad-580 001.

5.
The Deputy Director of Public Instructions,

Near Deputy Commissioner Office,

Dharwad-580 001.

6.
The Chairman,

Karnataka Education Board,

Malamaddi, Dharwad.

7.
Shri Gopal S/o. Ramachandra Bhat,

Age 59 years, Vice Principal,

Vidyaranya Composite P.U. College,

High School Section, Dharwad.
... Respondents
(By Shri Shivaprabhu S.Hiremath, AGA for R1 to R5;
Shri Lohit S.Patil, Advocate for R6;
Notice to R7 is held sufficient)

This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the order bearing
No.22(1)
/SASEA/
UPPA/
BADATI-39/2004-05/3820,
dated
10.10.2005, issued by 4^th respondent, produced at Annexure-G
and etc.,

This petition coming on for preliminary hearing B-Group,
this day, the Court made the following:

: 3 :

A candidate's eligibility for promotion is determined by their qualifications and seniority, not by their caste or tribe.

Headnote:
PROMOTION - ASSISTANT TEACHER - ELIGIBILITY - [The petitioner, an Assistant Teacher, was eligible for promotion to the post of Vice-Principal after completing five years of service. However, the post was filled by another candidate who was senior to the petitioner and belonged to the General Merit category. The petitioner challenged the promotion, claiming that the post was reserved for the Schedule Tribe category and that he was a more qualified and senior candidate. The court dismissed the petition, holding that the post was not reserved for any particular category and that the petitioner was not more qualified or senior than the candidate who was promoted.]
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher at respondent No.6, which had established four schools. In all these four schools, there were two Administrative post of Vice-Principal, one post of Principal and one post of Head Master. The eligibility criteria for promotion to the cadre of Vice-Principal was that a candidate should have completed five years of service as an Assistant Teacher. Since the petitioner was appointed on 26.05.1999 and after he completed five years in the year 2004, he was eligible to be promoted in the year 2004. The petitioner claims that the vacancy arose for the post of Vice Principal, which was allegedly reserved for Schedule Tribe. Since the petitioner belonged to Schedule Tribe, he filed a representation on 30.03.2004 to consider his case for promotion. Despite the petitioner making representation, respondent No.6 did not consider his request. Contrarily, respondent No.7 was promoted to the post of Principal on 10.10.2005. The petitioner allegedly not knowing the promotion of respondent No.7, made a request again to respondent No.6 on 02.11.2012. Since the respondent No.6 did not reply to the petitioner, he filed an application under Right to Information Act seeking information about the promotion to the post of Principal. Respondent No.4 furnished information on 02.05.2013 enclosing therewith an order of promotion of respondent No.7. The petitioner claimed that he was shocked to know the contents of the information furnished which disclosed that though respondent No.7 belonged to General Merit, he was appointed against one post that was reserved for Schedule Tribe. He alleged that respondent No.6 had suppressed the availability of an eligible Schedule Tribe candidate to be promoted to the post but had falsely represented to respondent No.5 that there were no Schedule Tribe candidate and that respondent No.5 approved the promotion of respondent No.7. The petitioner claimed that respondent No.6 did not disclose that there was a backlog for filling up the post which was reserved for Schedule Tribe. The petitioner therefore filed this writ petition to quash the order of promotion of respondent No.7 dated 10.10.2005 and for a direction to respondent Nos.1 to 6 to consider the demand made by the petitioner in his notice dated 30.01.2014 and to promote the petitioner with effect from the date of promotion of respondent No.7 and to pay all consequential benefits.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the post of Vice-Principal was not reserved for any particular category and that the petitioner was not more qualified or senior than the candidate who was promoted.
Issues: Whether the post of Vice-Principal was reserved for the Schedule Tribe category;Whether the petitioner was more qualified and senior than the candidate who was promoted.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the post of Vice-Principal was not reserved for any particular category and that the petitioner was not more qualified or senior than the candidate who was promoted.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition.

The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher at

respondent No.6, which had established four schools. In all these

four schools, there were two Administrative post of Vice-

Principal, one post of Principal and one post of Head Master.

The eligibility criteria for promotion to the cadre of

Vice-Principal was that a candidate should have completed five

years of service as an Assistant Teacher. Since the petitioner was

appointed on 26.05.1999 and after he completed five years in

the year 2004, he was eligible to be promoted in the year 2004.

The petitioner claims that the vacancy arose for the post of Vice

Principal, which was allegedly reserved for Schedule Tribe. Since

the

petitioner

belonged

Schedule

Tribe,

filed

representation on 30.03.2004 to consider his case for promotion.

Despite

the

petitioner

making

representation,

respondent No.6 did not consider his request. Contrarily,

respondent No.7 was promoted to the post of Principal on

10.10.2005. The petitioner allegedly not knowing the promotion

of respondent No.7, made a request again to respondent No.6 on

02.11.2012. Since the respondent No.6 did not reply to the

: 4 :

petitioner, he filed an application under Right to Information Act

seeking information about the promotion to the post of Principal.

Respondent No.4 furnished information on 02.05.2013 enclosing

therewith an order of promotion of respondent No.7. The

petitioner claimed that he was shocked to know the contents of

the

information

furnished

which

disclosed

that

though

respondent No.7 belonged to General Merit, he was appointed

against one post that was reserved for Schedule Tribe. He

alleged that respondent No.6 had suppressed the availability of

an eligible Schedule Tribe candidate to be promoted to the post

but had falsely represented to respondent No.5 that there were

no Schedule Tribe candidate and that respondent No.5 approved

the promotion of respondent No.7. The petitioner claimed that

respondent No.6 did not disclose that there was a backlog for

filling up the post which was reserved for Schedule Tribe.

The petitioner therefore filed this writ petition to

quash the order of promotion of respondent No.7 dated

10.10.2005 and for a direction to respondent Nos.1 to 6 to

consider the demand made by the petitioner in his notice dated

30.01.2014 and to promote the petitioner with effect from the

: 5 :

date of promotion of respondent No.7 and to pay all

consequential benefits.

The petition is opposed by respondent No.6, who has

filed the statement of objections contending that the post of Vice

Principal in respondent No.6 was not reserved to any category.

He submitted that since respondent No.7 was the only eligible

candidate who was at the top in list of seniority, he was

considered and promoted to the post of Vice Principal.

Learned counsel also invited the attention of the

Court to the seniority list during the year 2013, which indicated

that respondent No.7 was placed at Sl. No.9, while the petitioner

was placed at Sl. No.45. Learned counsel for respondent No.6

has also placed on record the seniority list as on 30.06.2007,

which indicates that respondent No.7 was placed at Sl.No.2,

while the petitioner was placed at Sl.No.21. He submits that

unless the petitioner is able to demonstrate that the post of vice

Principal was reserved for Schedule Tribe and that the petitioner

was better qualified and senior than respondent No.7, the

promotion of respondent No.7 should not be disturbed. He also

contended that the petitioner has filed the writ petition after nine

: 6 :

years from the date of promotion of respondent No.7 and that

the delay is not sufficiently explained.

It is not in dispute that the post of Vice Principal in

the instant case was not reserved for any particular category.

Annexure-F filed by the petitioner itself indicates that the post

which was filled up by promotion of respondent No.7 was

unreserved. Therefore the claim of the petitioner that the post

of Vice-Principal was rese

Click Here to Read the rest of this document