Muthappa N. Akur and Others vs The State of Karnataka and Others

Anand Byrareddy, J.—These petitions were heard and disposed of by this common order having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.

The petition in WP 60165/2010 is filed by the petitioner, who was an Arts Graduate possessing 71.36% of aggregate marks and who had completed his Bachelor of Physical Education securing 81.91% marks. He was claiming to be eligible for appointment to the post of Physical Education Teacher in a high school.

It transpires that the fourth respondent, which is the management of a high school had invited applications for appointing a Physical Education Teacher, to the school run by it. The petitioner is said to have submitted his application to the fourth respondent. The fourth respondent after following the procedure, had selected the petitioner to the post of Physical Education Teacher as he was found to be more meritorious than other candidates including the fifth respondent. The fourth respondent had passed a resolution and selected and appointed the petitioner as a Physical Education Teacher and sent the resolution for approval of respondents 2 and 3. The second respondent - institution had not approved the appointment and at the instance of the fifth respondent - State is said to have referred the matter regarding selection and appointment of the petitioner to a three-member District Committee, to inquire whether selection was in accordance with law. The allegation was that the petitioner was an outsider and not from the same village, and that he had got the assistance of a local person to file an application and the signature of the petitioner was forged. It is on that allegation that an inquiry was conducted and it was held that the application of the petitioner was surrounded with suspicion and therefore the signature of the petitioner did not tally with the signature found on the application and accordingly, the three-man District Committee having held that he was not eligible to be selected on the basis of the said application, as it was irregular, it was recommended that the fifth respondent be appointed in the place of the petitioner.

It is in that background that the petitioner had filed an appeal under Section 130 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983. The appeal however was dismissed summarily on the ground that it was premature and there was no order which could be challenged and it was a mere communication and hence the appeal having been dismissed, the present appeal is filed to contend that the petitioner''s selection having been set at naught on the specious plea that there was fraud and infirmity in the signature of the petitioner not tallying with the signature on the application, reeked of fraud and that it went to the root of the matter and the application was invalid, was an unfair excuse put-forth to accommodate the fifth respondent, as is apparent from the sequence of events.

The learned counsel would submit that he was certainly meritorious and merely on the footing that the applicant did not appear to have been submitted by the petitioner, the finding having been arrived at, to have negated his appointment, as if he had produced false and forged documents, results in a miscarriage of justice.

While the connected petition is filed by the management to contend that either the appointment of the petitioner in the first of these petitions should be approved or if it is found to be invalid, a direction may be issued to invite fresh applications and thereafter select an eligible candidate.

While the learned counsel for the fifth respondent, would emphasize that the petitioner''s application was indeed found to be invalid and irregular and therefore, the same having been negated, is in accordance with law. There is no injustice caused as the present respondent No. 5 is already discharging his duties as C Physical Education Teacher for the past 3 years prior to the petition and he having been selected and confirmed in the said post, does not result in any injustice and hence seeks to justify the impugned action of the respondents.

Incidentally, it is noticed that the petitioner was 33 at the time of filing of the petition and today, would be about 38 years. Similarly, respondent No. 5 was also 33 at the time of filing of the petitioner and would now be 38. Therefore the petitioner and the respondent No. 5, who are seeking regular appointment as Physical Education teachers would necessarily have to be eligible to be so appointed as on date. If they have crossed the age limit prescribed, the very petition has been rendered infructuous. It is pity that a matter relating to selection and appointment of a physical education teacher should prove to be so difficult for the management. It is therefore appropriate at this point of time to invite fresh applications so that there is wide choice of selection of physical education teachers, who would be better choice for holding the post of physical education teacher. If the petitioner in WP 60165/2010 and the fifth respondent therein are also eligible to make applications, there should be no impediment for them to do so.

With that observation both the petitions are disposed of permitting the management to invite fresh applications for the appointment of a Physical Education Teacher prescribing the eligibility criteria and the petitioner and the fifth respondent, if they are so eligible, shall also file applications seeking such appointment.