M. Keshava Murthy vs State of Karnataka

H.S. Kempanna, J.—The Petitioner has challenged the legality and correctness of the order dated 28.04.2006 passed in application No. 1894/99 by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (KAT), Bangalore, under which his application has been dismissed.

The brief facts of the case are:

The Petitioner belongs to Group-2A coming under the category of other Backward Classes. He was born on 15.07.1987. He has passed his pre-university course as also his TCH Course.

By notification dated 05.07.1996 applications had been invited for filling-up the posts of Primary School Teachers. The Petitioner had applied for the post of Primary School Teacher under Group-2A corning under the category of other Backward Classes and he was selected. Final selection list was published by 3rd Respondent on 28.11.1996 in which the Petitioner''s name stood at Sl. No. 70. When the Selecting Authority was about to issue: Appointment Order, a compliant was filed by his wife-Smt. T. Bharathi alleging that he married her in May 1994 at Pavagada and he had attempted to murder her after taking her to a place on the pretext of getting job to her and this he committed after having married another girl by name Sharada by the end of the year 1994 without her knowledge. In connection with said complaint, Pavagada police registered a case in Crime No. 229/1995 against him for the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 324 of IPC and later, on completion of the investigation, they filed/charge sheet against him before the Jurisdictional Magistrate upon which criminal case came to be registered against him. The said case was committed to the court of Sessions at Tumkur which came to he registered as Sessions Case No. 2/96. In the said case, he was acquitted by judgment dated 31.07.1998. Thereafter, he made a request for issuing appointment order to him to the authorities who issued him endorsement dated 24.02.1999 stating that he is ineligible for appointment as a Primary School Teacher. Since he was deprived of the appointment to the post of the Primary School Teacher by issuing the endorsement dated 24.02.1999 he filed the application before the Tribunal seeking for a direction to hold his selection as valid and appoint him as Primary School Teacher along with consequential benefits from the date of his selection.

It was contended by the Petitioner before the Tribunal that he was not given appointment on-the ground that a criminal case is foisted against him. As he has been acquitted of the charges levelled against him by the Sessions Court, Tumkur in SC No. 2/1996, he cannot be said to be ineligible for appointment and therefore, sought, for relief as prayed in the application.

Per contra, Respondents contended that, since as on the date of issuance of appointment order a criminal case had been registered against the Petitioner, he was ineligible for appointment. Furl her as the post which were available a on the date of notification, under which the Petitioner had been selected which was done in the year 1996 has been filled-up and as no post has been kept Vacant under the category-2A and as another selection has also taken place earlier to the date of his acquittal, the Applicant is not entitled to any direction as sought for. Accordingly, they prayed for dismissal of the application.

The Tribunal on consideration of the material before it held, though the acquittal of the Petitioner in the Sessions Case is no bar for considering his case for appointment as no post had been kept, vacant, under the category-2A in the selection list prepared in the year 1996 and by invoking Rule 5(2) of the KCSRs held on moral turpitude, the Petitioner is ineligible for being appointed as Primary School Teacher and accordingly dismissed the application filed by the Petitioner by is order dated 28.04.2006. It is the said order that has been assailed by the Petitioner in this writ petition.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties.

The Petitioner having been selected to the post of Primary School Teacher under the notification dated 01.08.1996 under category 2-A is not disputed. He was not given appointment order as his wife-Smt. T. Bharathi had filed a complaint against him before the Pavagada police alleging that he has married her in May 1994 at Pavagada and had attempted to murder her after taking her, to a place on the pretext of getting job to her and this he committed after having married another girl by name Sharada by the end of the year 1994 without her knowledge upon which the Pavagada police registered a case in Crime No. 229/1995 for the offences under Sections 307 and 324 IPC and the said police on completion of the investigation filed charge sheet against the Petitioner before the Jurisdictional Magistrate which case came to he committed to the Court, of Sessions at Tumkur. Since, as on the dale of issuance of the appointment order a criminal case had been registered, he was found ineligible for being appointed as Primary School, Teacher. He was acquitted in the Session Case on 31.07.1998 i.e. nearly about 2 years after the notification for filling-up of posts of Primary School Teacher had been notified and selection had been made.

It is the-contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that since the Petitioner has been acquitted in the Sessions case, he is entitled to be appointed as Primary School Teacher as he had been selected on merits in the selection list.

We do not find any merit in the said submission of the counsel for the Petitioner for the reason that the Petitioner'' in the Sessions case has not been given an honorable acquittal but on the ground of extending the benefit; of doubt. Apart from this, the Petitioner had been selected-in the list prepared in the year 1996 under category-2A. All the posts reserved under category-2A under the said list have been filed up. No post had been kept vacant. Further, another selection, has also taken place earlier to the date of acquittal in the, Sessions Case. Further Rule 5(2) of the KCSRs contemplates that no man who has more than one wife living would be eligible for appointment to a State Civil Service, unless the Government, on special ground has exempted such a person from the operation of the said rule. In this case, admittedly the compliant filed against the Petitioner by Smt. T. Bharathi, who happens to be his first wife, discloses that. the Petitioner/Applicant had married another lady by name Smt. Sharndha and as such, he had two wives living as on the date of selection i.e. in the year 1996 itself. Therefore, for the reasons stated to above and by virtue of the aforesaid Rule and on moral ground the Petitioner is ineligible for being appointed as Primary School Teacher.

The Tribunal, in our view, has also not committed any error in declining the request of the Petitioner by dismissing his application.

Accordingly, we do not find any merit in this petition and it is dismissed. Rule discharged.