Basavaraj vs The Additional Commissioner, Public Instructions Department and Others

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for respondents No. 1 to 3 and the learned counsels for respondents No. 4, 5 and 6.

It is the case of the petitioner that the approval of the order of appointment of respondent No. 6 passed by respondent No. 1 is bad in law and has sought for quashing of the same. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 4 Society, which runs an Educational Institution had invited applications to fill up the posts of Hindi Teacher, apart from other vacancies and reserving the post for a Scheduled Caste candidate. There were two candidates, who attended the interview and the petitioner was one of them. He was selected and appointed vide order dated 22.08.1986. The petitioner, from that day till the filing of the petition, was discharging his duty as a Hindi Teacher and there was no complaint whatsoever as to his performance.

In the year 1991, namely, on 26.09.1991 the respondent No. 4 is said to have forwarded the proposal of the petitioner''s appointment for approval along with necessary particulars. Though the proposal was sent to the respondent No. 2, it appears that the same was not considered and again a reminder had been sent and to the surprise of the petitioner it is only in February 2009 that there were rumours of appointment being made of the respondent No. 6 as a Hindi Teacher in the place of petitioner and that the respondent No. 1 had already approved the appointment of respondent No. 6 and with such expedition that the petitioners sensed something amiss and though the petitioners request for requirement of approval was pending since 1991, the manner in which the respondent No. 6 was shown to be appointed and the appointment approved post haste was therefore fraught with mischief.

That it is the allegation of the petitioner that respondents No. 1 to 3 had illegally and in violation of principles of natural justice have failed to approve the appointment of petitioner though it was pending consideration for long.

It is only in the pleadings before this Court that the respondents have revealed that the proposal, which was sent for approval had been rejected by the Government on 27.06.1990 and on 18.11.1993 that on both occasions the petitioner was not informed of such rejection and the reasons for such rejection. For, if the petitioner had been informed to take steps atleast to look some other appointment or to address the issue as to whether the issue was controversy, that appears to have been raised as to whether he was fully qualified to occupy the post of Hindi Teacher.

The petitioner points out that his services had been accepted by the respondents from the date of his appointment till he was ultimately intimated of rejection of approval of his appointment, and therefore, it is this grievance of the petitioner that all the respondents have kept him in the dark and the rejection of his approval on the ground that he was not qualified, which again is incorrect, as the petitioner is fully qualified and eligible for appointment as a Hindi Teacher. The mala fides is on the part of the respondents in having suppressed the information as to the rejection of approval of appointment. Therefore, on this primary contention the present petition is based.

The learned counsel for respondent No. 4, on the other hand, has filed statement of objections to contend that though the petitioner having been appointed, in the first instance, is true and correct, his appointment was sent for approval and the appointment was therefore subject to the approval being granted by the Department. But the Department not having approved the appointment, on the ground, that he did not possess the requisite qualification, it was orally communicated to the petitioner, and therefore, the respondent being sympathetic towards the petitioner, on account of his long standing service, had again sought approval from the Department of his appointment and it was again rejected on 18.11.1993, and therefore, the respondent yet again in the interest of the petitioner had sought permission of the department to treat the appointment of petitioner as backlog appointment. This also was rejected in the year 1999.

Therefore, it is unfair on the part of the petitioner to allege mala fides on the part of the respondents, who have always been sympathetic towards plight and have repeatedly sought approval of his appointment on the fact that the Department had repeatedly negated is no fault on the part of the respondents and ultimately the respondent No. 6 having been appointed and his appointment having been approved, is not the making of respondent No. 4, but of the Department, and hence, the allegations made against respondent No. 4 is unfair and not warranted.

Further it is pointed out that the vacant post of Hindi Teacher was reserved for Group II B, as per the Notification, which is produced as per Annexure-R4 to the statement of objections and it is the direction of the Department that the post should be reserved for such group, and therefore, the respondent No. 4 was helpless in accommodating the petitioner and it cannot be said that there has been deliberate suppression of facts and that the petitioner has been put to injustice on account of not having informed him promptly of the rejection, so that he could have found his career elsewhere.

It is in this vein that the statement of objection is filed.

Having regard to the above facts and circumstances that the petitioner had been placed on notice in writing of the rejection of his approval though it is claimed he was orally informed the repeated rejection of the petitioner''s appointment for approval ought to have been brought to his notice, but it is too late in the day to now take any correct measures and it is unfortunate that the petitioner will have to fend for himself and look for employment elsewhere. The petition cannot be treated as being a suit for damages and the question of granting any compensation to the petitioner also would not arise, having regard to the claim of respondent No. 4 that it runs Educational Institution in a rural area and does not have funds, which are available to even pay damages to the petitioner, even if he deserves such damages. Therefore, the petition is disposed of, in the light of the above circumstances, which are rather unfortunate for the petitioner.