Savita Rudrappa Soner and Others vs The State of Karnataka and Others

Aravind Kumar, J.—Heard the arguments of learned advocates and by consent, writ petitions are taken up for final hearing.

Petitioners are calling in question the provisional list published by the Executive Director, Karnataka Residential Educational Institutions Society-R-5, contending inter alia that petitioners they have been working in different Morarji Desai Residential Schools across the State and they came to be appointed on contractual basis commencing from the year 2008 and when notifications came to be published in the year 2011 calling for applications for filling up of regular vacancies which notification indicated that 5% weightage would be given for each completed year of service to the teachers already working and same not having been extended, perforced the candidates/teachers already working to approach this Court in W.P. No. 72638/2012 and this Court after considering the contentions raised in said writ petition along with other writ petitions partly had allowed said writ petition with the following directions:

"iv) It is declared that all the Principals and teachers including the petitioners herein appointed on or after 2004-2005 are entitled for the benefit of service weightage as specified in Recruitment Regulations, 2011.

v) The respondents to complete the selection process pursuant to the recruitment notification dated 27.04.2011 by granting the benefit of service weightage to the petitioners and all other similarly situated Principals and teachers,

vi) Since respondents have already processed the applications and issued final selection list and additional selection list, they have to redo the process of selection by extending the benefit of service weightage to the petitioners and similarly situated candidates."

It is also contended said order came to be affirmed by Division Bench in W.A. No. 5127/2012 and other connected matters by order dated 28.02.2013. Thereafter on 08.07.2014, a provisional list has been published by 5th respondent vide Annexure-E and in the said list, names of the petitioners did not found a place. Thereafter, one more provisional list came to be published on 10.12.2014 which was in pursuance to the earlier provisional list and in the said list also the names of petitioners did not find a place and it is their grievance that 5th respondent has not considered the services weightage of the petitioners which ought to have been extended and as such, objections filed to the said provisional list by some of the petitioners was required to be remedied by 5th respondent and said exercise having not been undertaken and selection process having progressed by verification of records of candidates, petitioners are seeking for quashing of the revised provisional list dated 10.12.2015 vide Annexure-F issued by 5th respondent. There is no dispute to the fact that pursuant to dismissal of Writ Appeals, an additional list came to be published by 5th respondent as directed in the order passed in W.P. No. 20204/2011 and other connected matters on 13.07.2012, by giving service weightage to all the teachers including the petitioners. However, subsequently a revised provisional list came to be published on 10.12.2014 (vide Annexure-F in W.P. No. 100572/2015) whereunder the names of the petitioners has been left out or does not find a place.

Sri Sunil Desai, learned counsel appearing for R5 in all these petitions would fairly submit that some of the petitioners namely petitioners being aggrieved by the provisional list dated 10.12.2014 Annexure-F have already submitted their representations requesting to redo the list and also to include their name/s in compliance with the directions already issued by this Court on 13.07.2012 in W.P. No. 20204-20364/2011 and connected matters and said representation is under active consideration. He would also hasten to add that claim of all the petitioners who are before this Court and all other teachers who are similarly placed and their respective claims for including their names in the revised list would also be considered in the light of directions issued by this Court and submits that if they are found eligible, they would be included in the final list, as otherwise, they would be intimated by issuing an endorsement indicating the reasons or grounds on which their application is being rejected or their names are not being included in the final list. His submission made in this regard is placed on record.

Though Mr. Jagadish Patil, learned counsel would vehemently contend that till such an exercise is done, verification of documents in respect of the candidates whose names are found in the list dated 10.12.2014 should not be done, this Court is not inclined to accept the said submission on the ground that vacancies having arisen in the year 2011 and same having not been filled up for the past 4 years on account of which the students studying in the respective schools are at loss and claim of the petitioners and similarly placed teachers having been agreed to be addressed by 5th respondent, it would not cause any hardship in the event of 5th respondent were to proceed with the exercise of examining the original records of the applicants whose name are found in provisional list dated 10.12.2014. In that view of the matter, contention raised by Mr. Jagadish Patil, learned counsel for petitioners cannot be accepted and it stands rejected.

At the cost of repetition, by placing the submission made by Sri Sunil Desai, which is to the effect that claim of the petitioners would be considered and if they fulfill the criteria of the directions issued by this Court, they would accordingly consider the claim of all the petitioners and similarly placed persons, these writ petitions stand disposed of by recording said submission.

Ordered accordingly.

Learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks.