The court directed state authorities to consider a candidate's representation for appointment to a reserved post when the candidate was recommended by the management but excluded from the final approval without assigned reasons.

Digitally signed by MALATHI IYENGAR

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 IN SO FAR AS SELECTION AND APPOINTMENT OF PETITIONER TO THE POST OF LIBRARIAN DATED 20.05.2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-K WITHIN THE TIME FRAME SPECIFIED BY THIS HONBLE COURT AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

ORAL ORDER

This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:

(i) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the proposal submitted by the respondent No.4 in so far as selection and appointment of petitioner to the post of Librarian dated 20.05.2014 vide Annexure-K within the time frame specified by this Hon’ble Court.

(ii) Direct the respondent Authorities to issue appointment order for the post of Librarian to the petitioner against Backlog Vacancy, Scheduled Caste quota, and consider his representation dated 13.06.2019 and 1.7.2019 (vide Annexure Q & R) and grant all consequential benefits to which the petitioner is entitled to.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the fourth respondent–institution issued a notification dated 28.07.2013 (Annexure-G) calling for applications from eligible candidates to the post of Librarian, reserving one post for Scheduled Caste (“SC” for short) and one post for Scheduled Tribe (“ST” for short) candidates. The petitioner applied for the post of Librarian reserved for SC candidates. Along with other posts, the selection process was conducted in accordance with due process of law.

3. The Management has send a proposal for approval of the selected candidates to the Government, including the name of the petitioner, on 20.05.2014 (Annexure-K). Even though the petitioner’s name was recommended on the ground that he is a meritorious candidate and that he satisfied all the conditions, including the qualifications prescribed by the University Grants Commission (UGC), while issuing the approval order dated 22.02.2019 (Annexure-P), the name of the petitioner was not included. Despite the recommendation made by the Management, no reasons have been assigned in Annexure-P for the non-consideration of the petitioner’s appointment to the post of Librarian. Therefore, the petitioner submitted representations vide Annexures Q and R. Since the same have not been considered by the respondents, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. Under these circumstances, it is suffice for this Court to direct respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to consider the representations submitted by the petitioner vide Annexures Q and R, in accordance with law, keeping in view the recommendation made by the Management, as expeditiously as possible, and in any event, not later than three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

Mr. D Das, learned counsel for the petitioners is said to be out of station and on a prayer made on his behalf, matter stands adjourned to be listed again on 12.02.2026.