Veena G.R. vs The State of Karnataka and Others

Mohan M. Shantana Goudar, J.—The petitioner along with respondent No. 4 and others applied for the post of Assistant Primary School Teacher, Grade-II pursuant to the notification dated 28.8.2007 issued by respondent No. 1-State inviting applications. The names of the petitioner as well as respondent No. 4 did not figure in the provisional selection list announced by the State. However, in the final list, the name of the petitioner appears at Sl. No. 14 and the name of respondent No. 4 did not appear, meaning thereby the petitioner was finally selected to the post of Assistant Primary School Teacher, whereas respondent No. 4 was not selected. Thereafter respondent No. 4 made a representation to the State contending that she is more meritorious than the petitioner and hence she ought to have been selected. In the meanwhile, she had sought for permission of the State Government to correct certain material facts in her application filed pursuant to the notification inviting applications. Accepting the representation of respondent No. 4, she was selected by issuing revised final select list deleting the name of the petitioner. In other words, respondent No. 4 was declared selected in the place of the petitioner by issuing revised final selection list dated 13.2.2008. From that day, respondent No. 4 is working in the said post of Assistant Primary School Teacher till this day.

Being aggrieved by the selection of respondent No. 4 and non-selection of the petitioner, petitioner approached the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal by filing Application No. 1245/2008, which came to be dismissed on 30.11.2010 as per the order at Annexure-D on the ground that respondent No. 4 is more meritorious than the petitioner. While passing the said order, Karnataka Administrative Tribunal did not practically advert to the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner herein that respondent No. 4 herein should not have been allowed to correct the mistake which crept in her application seeking selection. According to the petitioner''s counsel, the permission granted by the State to correct the mistake of the 4th respondent in the application has resulted in miscarriage of justice. It is not open for any candidate to intermeddle with the application filed by him/her when once the selection procedure takes place.

Be that as it may, during the course of hearing of this writ petition, learned Government Advocate has filed a memo dated 1.12.2015 along with letters dated 16.11.2015 and 27.11.2015 written by the Deputy Director of Public Instructions, Shimoga District, which reads thus:--

"The undersigned submits that as per the suggestions and our Fax Message dated 4.11.2015, the Deputy Director of Public Instructions, Shivamogga District has written letters dated 16.11.2015 and 27.11.2015 with regard to accommodate the petitioner-Kum. Veena G.R. as Assistant Primary School Teacher. Upon verification, it is stated in the letters that there are no vacant post in the said Notification, but one post was reserved for 2-A Project Displaced Person. The selected candidate has not produced the proper records. Hence, the Post became vacant. It can be accommodated to the petitioner-Kum. Veena G.R. under 2-A Category with the permission of the Government as per concerned Rules. There is no necessity to create Supernumerary Post in that regard. The copies of the letters dated 16.11.2015 & 27.11.2015 are produced as Annexures-R1 & R2 respectively.

Wherefore, it is humbly prayed that this Hon''ble Court may be pleased to take the above facts and documents on record and issue necessary orders, in the interest of justice and equity."

(emphasis supplied)

From the aforementioned narration found in the memo, it is clear that one post reserved for 2A Project Displaced Person category is lying vacant, inasmuch as no one is selected for the said reserved post. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner belongs to 2A category. The memo further discloses that since one post of 2A Project Displaced Person category is lying vacant, the petitioner can be accommodated to the said post under 2A category with the permission of the State Government as per the concerned Rules. Hence, there is no necessity to create supernumerary post for accommodating the petitioner.

The memo, dated 1.12.2015 filed by the learned Government Advocate is taken on record and the contents therein are recorded.

In order to avoid any further complication in the matter and as respondent No. 4 is already working since 2008, interest of justice will be met if respondents 1 to 3 are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for accommodating her for vacant post under 2A Project Displaced Person category.

We make it clear that the petitioner''s appointment will come into effect from the date of her joining the duties after she is appointed. She will be entitled to all the service benefits from that day onwards.

This order shall be complied with by respondents 1 to 3 as early as possible, but not later than the outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of this order.

With the aforesaid observations, writ petition stands disposed of.