Smt. Azeez Khan Naz vs Paper Town High School, Bhadravathi and Others

V. Gopala Gowda, J.-In this writ petition the petitioner is seeking a declaration that the selection of 4th respondent as Hindi Teacher is ab initio void and for a direction to the respondents to appoint her to the post in the first respondent-Paper Town High School, Bhadravathi. The main ground of attack is that the Selection Committee constituted was not in accordance with Rule 6(2) of the Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Rules''). The other ground of attack is that petitioner secured First Class in the qualifying examination and possess experience but the same have not been taken into consideration by the Selection Committee.

In the statement of objections filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 it is stated that the Selection Committee was constituted in accordance with Rule 6(2) of the Rules and details of the same are furnished in paragraphs 10 and 11. It is further stated that petitioner does not belong to Group ''C'' category which was a prerequisite for the post. It is further stated that the selection was based upon the performance in the written test and interview. It is also stated that the income of petitioner''s husband Mohammed Ilyaz, who is working in V.I.S.L., exceed Rs. 40,000/- and hence the petitioner was not entitled to be considered under Group ''C'' category. It is further stated that 4th respondent-Smt. Rangamma, whose selection is sought to be declared as ab initio void by the petitioner, was not at all selected and the 5th respondent, who has been subsequently got impleaded, was the candidate selected and hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

Having heard the learned Counsels for the parties and perusing the petition averments, statement of objections and the documents produced, I am satisfied that this writ petition is liable to be dismissed as none of the grounds raised by the petitioner are tenable.

In the first place, in the statement of objections it is stated that 4th respondent-Smt. Rangamma was not selected and on the other hand, the 5th respondent-Smt. Bharathi was selected to the post. The petitioner is seeking to declare the selection of 4th respondent-Smt. Rangamma as ab initio void. Since 4th respondent was not the selected candidate, question of declaring her selection ab initio void does not arise. The prayer sought for by the petitioner is misconceived.

Subsequent to the filing of objections statement, even though the petitioner got impleaded the 5th respondent-Smt. Bharathi, who is the candidate selected by the Selection Committee, petitioner has not sought for amendment of prayer to declare the selection of 5th respondent as ab initio void. Mere impleading of 5th respondent without seeking any relief against her does not serve any purpose. On this ground also the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

Even on merits also, the ground of attack that Selection Committee was constituted contrary to Rule 6(2) of the Rules and hence the selection made is bad in law, is no longer, available to the petitioner. Petitioner has not raised such objection with regard to the Selection Committee constituted. She appeared before the Selection Committee and took part in the selection process. Being unsuccessful in the selection, it is not open to the petitioner to say that the Selection Committee was not duly constituted and that the selection was bad. In view of the participation of petitioner in the selection process before the Selection Committee, the petitioner is estopped from taking-up such a contention in the writ petition.

The advertisement inviting the applications for the post is produced as Annexure-I. The same reveals that the post of Hindi Teacher was reserved for Group ''C'' category. Since the petitioner was not entitled to claim reservation under Group ''C'' in view of her husband''s income exceeding Rs. 40,000.00, petitioner cannot have any grievance for her non-selection.

The selection pertains to the year 1994. Already six years have elapsed. The 4th respondent is no more now. The 5th respondent has been working for the last six years. Under these circumstances, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Writ petition is misconceived and devoid of merits. Hence, the same is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.