Karnataka High Court
WRIT PETITION 80331 of 2013 on 26 January 2004
Digitally signed byCHANDRASHEKARLAXMANKATTIMANILocation: HighCourt of Karnataka `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY
-WRIT PETITION NO.80331 OF 2013 (SRES)
BETWEEN:
CHANNAPPA S/O VI;RUPAKSHAPPA MENASAGI AGE 40 YEARS WORKING AS PEON WOMEN’S ARTS AND COMMERCE COLLEGE, GADAG R/O OSANAGOUDRA BUILDING VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, KARIYAMMAN KALI BADAVANE
GADAG GADAG DISTRICT
…PETITIONER
(BY SHRI BASAVARAJ GODACHI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, M. S. BUILDING, BENGALURU. REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, M. S. BUILDING, BENGALURU. REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
1.THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BNY SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPT., M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU 2.THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BAILHONGAL SUB-DIVISION BAILHONGAL TQ. BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI
2.THE DIRECTOR, COLLEGIATE EDUCATION. PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU. COLLEGIATE EDUCATION. PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU.
3.THE COMMISSIONER OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, BENGALURU. EDUCATION, BENGALURU.
4.THE CHAIRMAN, KARNATAKA LIBERAL EDUCATION SOCIETY, BENGAUM, KARNATAKA LIBERAL EDUCATION SOCIETY, BENGAUM, *Corrected V/C/O dt. 17.09.2024.
SD/- (RVHJ)
* 5. THE PRINCIPAL, 3.THE TAHASHILDAR K.L.E.SOCIETIES WOMENS ARTS AND COMMERCE COOLEGE, SAUNDATTI GADAG BETAGERI, PIN – 582 110. TQ. SAUNDATTI DIST. BELAGAVI 4.AMEENA @ AMEENABI W/O MAHAMMEDALI BELAWADI AGE: 76 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O H. NO. 83, NEAR KANNADA SCHOOL KANABARAGI TQ. & DIST. BELAGAVI NOW R/O WANTAMURI TQ. & DIST. BELAGAVI 5.KHATEJABI W/O MAHABOOBSAB BELAWADI AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O H. NO. 83, NEAR KANNADA SCHOOL KANABARAGI TQ. & DIST. BELAGAVI 6.GULABAHAMED S/O ABDULMAJID @ ABDULSAB BELAWADI AGE: 76 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O H. NO. CCB 43, AJAMNAGAR 5TH CROSS, BELAGAVI 7.FAMEEDA W/O HUSSAINSAB BELAWADI AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O NANDAGAD TQ. KHANAPUR DIST. BELAGAVI ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT K. VIDYAVATHI, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NO.2 & 3 TO HOLD AN ENQUIRY AND TO DELETE THE NAMES OF RESPONDENTS NO.4 TO 7 IN THE GRANT ORDER DATED:26.01.2004 IN NO.NCR CR.477/99-2000 PASSED BY THE
*Corrected V/C/O dt: 17.09.2024SD/- (RVHJ)
3RD RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND TO CONFIRM THE GRANT IN FAVOUR OF THE MOTHER OF THE PETITIONER TO THE EXTENT OF 5 ACRES IN BLOCK NO.395 SITUATED AT MUNAVALLI VILLAGE, TALUK SAUNDATTI DIST:BELAGAVI BY CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATION DATD:17.10.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-G.; AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
The petitioner is working for the fifth respondent for the past 24 years. The appointment was not made as per the roster. Though the petitioner’s appointment was eligible for approval and grant-in-aid the same was not considered for extending the said benefit. The Government issued Notification dated 20[th] May 1996 making it effective from retrospective date of 1[st] June 1992 relaxing the violation of roster system said to have committed in teaching and non-teaching appointments, for regularization for which proposals are to be forwarded. Since the petitioner came be appointed subsequent to the said date, the proposal of the petitioner was rejected. Hence the petition.
2. The petitioner challenges the Notification taking the ground that putting the date later than the date of petitioner’s
joining is irrational, unconstitutional since it renders him not eligible for grant-in-aid code. It is submitted that petitioner is working in the petition for the past 24 years. Secondly, it is submitted it amounts to hostile discriminatory treatment towards this petitioner that as per Annexure-J, K and L, there are several persons whose appointments were approved even though they have been appointed subsequent to the petitioner but their cases have been considered for grant-in-aid code.
3. In the light of the above, this petition has to be disposed of. Though negative equality cannot be extended to the petitioner, but it could be taken note of that the petitioner had been working in the respondent-Institution for the past 24 years. Moreover, when the benefit has been extended to the other employees who are similarly situated like the petitioner and the same is not extended to the petitioner who has put in more years of service, it gives heart-burns to the petitioner. Though the adverse direction of negative equality cannot be extended, but considering the facts of the case and the service put in by the petitioner, the respondent-Authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the order passed in favour of other employees whose cases have been approved for grant-in-aid code, and pass appropriate orders extending the said benefit to the petitioner also. Time for compliance is three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is also to be mentioned here that the petitioner may face the question of age bar. If that is the case, it is to be considered by the authorities in favour of the petitioner, as an exceptional case.
Sd/- JUDGE
lnn