In this petition, petitioner has sought for the reliefs:

a. Quash

the

order

passed

by

the

3^rd

respondent

Order

No.C8(2)

Sha.Shi.Aa/Hu/Ba.A:222/2019-20

dated

16.01.2020 as per Annexure – D to the writ

petition by issuing a writ of certiorari.

b. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus

directing the respondents to permit the

petitioner to fill up the post which is vacant as

per

their

discretion

and

consider

the

representation dated 20.01.2020 as per

Annexure – E to the writ petition.

c. Issue such other writ or order or direction as

this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant under

the circumstances of the case in the interest

of justice and equity.

3

2.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned AGA for the respondents and perused the material

on record.

3.

In

addition

to

reiterating

the

various

contentions urged in the memorandum of petition and

referring to the documents produced thereto, learned

counsel for the petitioner submits that on 03.09.2010, the

respondent

No.2

/

The

Commissioner

for

Public

Instructions had issued a notification dated 03.09.2010

calling upon the petitioner to comply with the roster policy.

The said notification was challenged by the petitioner

before this Court in W.P.No.9744/2012 and the same came

to be allowed vide final order dated 25.10.2013 wherein this

Court quashed the said direction vide Annexure – C by

permitting the petitioner to make appointment to the

vacancy that was created on its own, provided the criteria

and eligibility conditions, which are otherwise prescribed for

teachers recommended by the State Government were

complied with. It is the grievance of the petitioner that

despite the aforesaid order passed by this Court in

4

W.P.No.9744/2012

supra,

the

respondent

No.2

/

Commissioner has passed the impugned endorsement by

imposing the very same condition with regard to

applicability of the roster policy, which was quashed by this

Court and declared inapplicable to the petitioner-Trust in

the earlier round of litigation. It is therefore submitted that

the conditions imposed in the impugned endorsement at

Annexure – D dated 06.01.2020 imposing roster policy

upon the petitioner – Trust, is illegal, arbitrary and the same

deserves to be quashed and necessary directions are to be

issued to the respondents to consider and pass appropriate

orders on the petitioner’s representation at Annexure – E

dated 20.01.2020. Learned counsel for the petitioner

further submits that the petitioner – Trust is running an

educational

institution

under

the

name

and

style

“Venkateshwara Chandilkumaran’s Kannada and Tamil

High School, Tyagarajanagar, Bengaluru.”

4.

Per contra, learned AGA submits that there is

no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be

dismissed.

5

5.

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for

the petitioner, in the earlier round of litigation in

W.P.No.9744/2012, this Court passed the following order in

relation to the petitioner – Trust:

“Heard

the

learned

counsel

for

the

petitioner and the learned counsel for the

respondents.

2. The petitioner is said to be a public

charitable trust running educational institutions

and one of the institutions is a high school known

as Venkateshwara Chendilkumaran Kannada and

Tamil High School, Thyagarajanagar, Bangalore

pursuant to the permission granted by the second

respondent by order dated 28.6.1983. The

institution was granted the recognition under the

provisions of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983

(Hereinafter referred to as the “KE Act”, for

brevity). It was declared as a minority educational

institution by order dated 29.4.1987 pursuant to an

order passed by the Government, through the

Joint Director, Minority Education. There are other

institutions, namely, a pre-primary school and a

primary school run by the management, which

were also declared as the minority educational

institutions by the very authority. The orders in

this regard are at Annexures – A to F of the writ

petition.

6

It is the case of the petitioner that