STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. K GOVINDAPPA
LAWS(SC)-2008-11-40
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: KARNATAKA)
Decided on November 20,2008

STATE OF KARNATAKA Appellant
VERSUS
K. GOVINDAPPA Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

SHUJIT KUMAR MONDAL VS. THE STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2014-12-14] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN RAJARAM KAVLEKAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2011-10-9] [REFERRED TO]
PRIYA AGRAWAL VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2022-2-29] [REFERRED TO]
VEERAYYA F. KOTYALMATH VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. [LAWS(KAR)-2015-10-105] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGYA V. VS. CHIKKAMAGALURU INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES [LAWS(KAR)-2023-3-477] [REFERRED TO]
RUDRAMURTHY H.B VS. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (PRIMARY AND HIGH SCHOOL), DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, BANGALORE AND OTHERS [LAWS(KAR)-2016-10-76] [REFERRED TO]
BIDYUT KUMAR PANJA VS. WEST BENGAL BOARD OF PRIMARY EDUCATION [LAWS(CAL)-2014-9-95] [REFERRED TO]
SHARAD SRIVASTAVA VS. STATE OF U P & OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2013-9-362] [REFERRED]
MAHESH KUMAR SINGH VS. THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(DLH)-2017-7-299] [REFERRED TO]
ANUPAM SHARMA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2009-8-43] [REFERRED TO]
OMPRAKASH SINGH SHISODIYA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2020-4-128] [REFERRED TO]
R R INAMDAR VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2015-11-303] [REFERRED TO]
RAKESH CHAUDHARY VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-5-42] [REFERRED TO]
AULIE BANERJEE VS. MAULANA ABUL KALAM AZAD UNIVERSITY AND ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2016-3-27] [REFERRED TO]
J S YADAV VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(SC)-2011-4-98] [REFERRED TO]
VIVEKANAND TIWARI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2017-4-150] [REFERRED TO]
HARI CHARAN SONI VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2010-10-46] [REFERRED TO]
VEER KUNWAR SINGH UNIVERSITY VS. DR. PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH [LAWS(PAT)-2016-8-39] [REFERRED]
R. THIRUNAVUKKARASU VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2013-4-3] [REFERRED]
R. R. INAMDAR VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(SC)-2019-11-112] [REFERRED TO]
OM VIR SINGH VS. DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS, DEHRADUN AND ORS [LAWS(UTN)-2012-9-203] [REFERRED]
RASHMI M. S. VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2021-4-37] [REFERRED TO]
ASSOCIATION OF PRIVATE DENTAL AND MEDICAL COLLEGES VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2009-5-42] [REFERRED TO]
NIROOP RAJ VS. COCHIN PORT TRUST [LAWS(KER)-2022-12-187] [REFERRED TO]
A.DEIVENDRAN VS. MADURAI KAMARAJ UNIVERSITY [LAWS(MAD)-2013-11-98] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)The respondent No.1, Shri K. Govindappa was appointed as a Lecturer in History in an aided private college owned and managed by the Vinayaka Rural Education Society, the respondent No.2 herein, with effect from 10th July, 1994. The said college, which was situated at Hegalavadi, Gubbi Taluk, Tumkur District, applied for approval of the appointment of the respondent No.1, but such prayer was refused by the Government of Karnataka on the ground that the appointment had been made in violation of the Roster Policy and that he had been appointed in a post which was reserved for a Scheduled Caste candidate. A review petition was filed by the respondent No.1 before the Government contending that since there was only a single post of Lecturer in History in the college, the reservation policy would not apply to the said post in which the respondent No.1 had been appointed. As the claim of the respondent No.1 was rejected by the Government, he filed a Writ Petition before the Karnataka High Court praying for quashing of the orders passed by the Government and for a direction upon the concerned authorities to approve his appointment with effect from 21st July, 1994, from which date he had joined his duties. Contesting the claim of the respondent No.1 the appellants contended before the Writ Court that even though the Management was running only one college, it had different disciplines for which there were several Lecturers. It was contended that the college had to maintain the Roster for the purpose of making appointments after taking into consideration the entire cadre of Lecturers, irrespective of subjects. It was also contended that in the college in question there were six posts of Lecturers and hence, the post of Lecturer in History could not be considered as a single post.
(3.)The submissions made on behalf of the appellants was rejected by the learned Single Judge upon holding that since the post of Lecturer in History was a single post, the reservation policy would not apply to the appointment made to the said post. The learned Single Judge quashed the orders passed by the Government upon holding that the appointment of the respondent No.1 was just and legal and directed the appellants to give approval to his appointment.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.