Smt. S.D. Jwalashri vs State of Karnataka and Others

Dilip B. Bhosale, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner, in the present writ petition, seeks the following reliefs;

i) Issue writ of Certiorari quashing the Order dated 15.11.2012 bearing No. PA POO SHE/C-03/LL/DWP-13025/2011 vide Annexure-G, entire selection of Smt. J.N. Kalpa as lecturer in Chemistry, Navodaya Pre-University College as null and void in the interest of justice of equity;

ii) Issue Writ of Mandamus directing the 4th respondent management to constitute to new committee as per the directions issued by the Government and conduct fresh interview in accordance with the provisions of University Education Act in the interest of justice and equity.

The petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 13025/2011 which was heard with other writ petitions of the similarly placed persons. In the said writ petition, the petitioner had prayed for implementation of the order dated 22.3.2010 passed by the 5th respondent and direction to respondent No. 1 to approve the appointment. The advocate for the petitioner however, in the said writ petition, did not press the main prayer whereby he sought for implementation of the order dated 22.3.2010 and as a consequence thereof, further direction was also not issued. The learned Judge however having considered the nature of controversy, quashed the order of the Government dated 4.9.2010 passed by the Secretary, Education Department. By that order, the respondents were directed to conduct fresh interviews. Then the learned Judge proceeded to make following observation in paragraph No. 4 of the operative portion of the order dated 6.1.2012, which reads thus;

The second respondent Director, Pre-University Education shall consider the recommendation of the third respondent dated 29.10.2009 in accordance with law after providing an opportunity to the petitioner, fourth respondent and sixth respondent.

In view of these observations, the petitioner made a representation to the 3rd respondent i.e. the Deputy Director of Public Instructions, Pre-University, Education Department and placed his grievance on record for consideration. The 4th and 6th respondents, in those writ petitions also made representations. The 3rd respondent accordingly after considering the representations made by the petitioner and respondent No. 6 - J.N. Kalpa passed the impugned order.

The only contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that despite the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 6.1.2012, the petitioner was not granted an opportunity of being heard, and therefore, the order deserves to be set aside on that count alone. Though, I asked him (i.e., learned counsel for the petitioner) specifically whether he would like to make any submissions on merit, his reply was in negative.

I have perused the order passed by this Court dated 6.1.2012 and so also the impugned order with the help of learned counsel for the parties, which is in Kannada. It appears from the impugned order that the 3rd respondent considered the representations of the petitioner and so also of respondent No. 6 and passed the order, impugned in the present writ petition. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that he was not given an opportunity of hearing, in my opinion is devoid of no merits. No direction was issued, as is seen from paragraph No. 4 of the operative portion of the order dated 6.1.2012, to grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or respondents. The impugned order clearly indicates that petitioners grievance made in the representation was considered by the 3rd respondent. In the circumstances, I do not find any merit in the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. That apart, learned counsel for the petitioner could not and did not point out any regulation/rule whereby he can seek such an opportunity of hearing in the selection process. If an opportunity of being heard, as sought by the petitioner in the present case, is granted, perhaps no selection process will ever reach the final stage. The petitioner, neither in the writ petition nor in the application dated 26.6.2013, has stated that she was not given opportunity as indicated in order dated 6.1.2012.

Hence, I find no merit in the writ petition. Petition dismissed.