IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

WRIT PETITION NO.100304 OF 2021(S-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI SAMEERAPATEL JAHANGEER BIRDAR S/O. JAHANGEER BIRDAR, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT POST SHANTI NAGAR, KALYALI POST, ATHANI TALUK, BELAGAVI DISTRICT – 591 304, 786872649, [email protected]

(BY SRI MADANGOUDA N. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

…PETITIONER

AND:

• 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, M.S.BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU 560001, 08022385545, [email protected]
• 2. THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETORY, UDYOGA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001, 08030574957, kpsc-ka9at0nic(dot).in.
• 3. THE FIRST APPELLATE, UNDER RTI AND THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY, THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC

SERVICE COMMISSION, UDYOGA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001, 080-30545474.

4. THE KARNATAKA RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL, INSTITUTIONS SOCIETY REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NO.179M "RUPA COMPLEX" 2ND AND 3RD FLOOR, 1 ST MAIN ROAD, SHESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU – 560 020.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI P.N.HATTI, HCGP FOR R1; SRI BASAVARAJ GODACHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI SUNIL S. DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE THE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER NO.R(2) 136/2020-21/PSC DATED 17.07.2020 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE ANNEXURE-T FURTHER DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO INCLUDE THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN FINAL SELECTION LIST NO.R(2)712/ 2020-21/PSC DATED 09.06.2020 ANNEXURE-M SINCE THE PETITIONER BEING ELIGIBLE AND MERITORIOUS CANDIDATE UNDER GENERAL MERIT AND CATEGORY - IIB FOR THE POST OF LANGUAGE HINDI TEACHER TO THE SCHOOLS WHICH COME UNDER THE KARNATAKA RESIDENTIAL EDUCATION SOCIETY AND ACCORDINGLY BE DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO ISSUE APPOINTMENT ORDER TO THE PETITIONER AND ETC.,

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

1. The petitioner is before this Court challenging the final selection list dated 09.06.2020 as per Annexure-M and the order dated 17.07.2020 passed by respondent No.3 as per Annexure-T, in which the name of the petitioner has not been considered for the purpose of selection to the post for Hindi Language Teacher in Residential Schools.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner acquired and possessed the required qualification as prescribed in the Notification, dated 23.06.2017 produced at Annexure-A and that he had submitted all the documents in support of he acquiring all the required qualification. That, despite the petitioner possessing the required qualification, his name was not short listed in the Final Selection List. The petitioner being aggrieved by non inclusion of his name of the list filed objections and thereafter appeal under Section 19(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2008. That, respondent No.3 passed an order dated 17.07.2020 as per Annexure-T stating that

though the petitioner has obtained degree in B.A. and B.Ed., Hindi has not been the optional subject in B.A. and that equivalent degree has been obrained only after completing his B.Ed. degree. Accordingly, it is found that he did not fulfill the educational qualification required for the post.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner drawing attention of this Court to the document produced documents at U7 & U8 submits that petitioner indeed studied Hindi as an optional subject in his B.A. Degree and referring documents at U10 & U11 and submits that the petitioner had passed the "Rashtrabasha Praveen Poorvardha" examination conducted by "Dakshina Bharata Hindi Prachara Sabha", Madras, which is a recognized and equivalent degree as prescribed under the Notification. Thus, he submits that the petitioner did fulfill the entire eligibility criteria, which has not been taken into consideration by the respondents authorities. Hence, this petition.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Institution drawing attention of this Court to the

• 4 -

educational qualification prescribed for the post, submits that the petitioner was required to acquire B.Ed. qualification with the "Hindi method of teaching" and not as an optional subject and in the absence of the same, the petitioner falls short of the prescribed eligible educational qualification for the post. He further submits that the petition also cannot be maintained as the affected candidates have not been made as parties since the recruitment process is already over.

5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, which has passed the order at Annexure-T is unable to explain the reasons assigned in the said order as the said order do not refer to the qualification prescribed in the notification.

6. Learned HCGP fairly submits that there is an ambiguity & anomaly in the order and the same is required to be set right.

7. The submission is taken on record.

8. It is necessary to extract the minimum educational qualification prescribed under the Notification for the post of

• 5 -

Hindi Language Teacher in Murarji Desai Residential Schools 163-(28H.K.) Posts.

"(1) Must be holder of Bachelor Degree in Arts with Hindi Language as one of the optional subjects from a recognized university. OR Any other degree declared by the State Government of Karnataka equivalent to Bachelor Degree and bachelor of Education Degree. AND Must be holder of B.Ed Degree with Hindi as one of the methods, from the recognized university.

Government in its order No. ED 160 PTI 2003 DT: 24.02.2024 declared the following as equivalent to Bachelor Degree and B.Ed Degree in Hindi. Equivalent to Bachelor Degree in Hindi – Institutions.

Hindi Rathna – Mysore Hindi Prachar Parishad, Bangalore Raj Bhasha Vidvan-Karnataka Hindi Prachar Samiti, Bangalore Hindi Bhasha Praveen Karnataka Hindi Seva Samiti, Bangalore Rashtra Bhasha Praveen - Dakshina Bharatha Hindi Prachar Sabha, Madras. As per G.O.No.ED 125 PTI 2003 DT: 16.08.2023 following are the equivalent to B.Ed degree in Hindi Hindi Shikshak Course – Karnataka Mahila Hindi Seva Samiti, Bangalore."

9. Nothing is brought on record by the respondents to explain the meaning of the term "must be holder of B.Ed.

• 6 -

degree with Hindi as one of the methods from the recognized University".

10. Though there is a substance in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the Institution to the effect that the petitioner did not possess the educational qualification particularly in respect of B.Ed. degree having "Hindi as one of the methods", the said qualification has not been explained. Further from the documents produced at Annexures-U7 & U8 which are the marks statements issued by the Karnataka University with regard to first & second Semesters, Bachelor of Education examination, wherein Hindi is shown as one of the subjects. Annexures-U10 & U11 are the certificates issued by Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha, Madras with regard to the petitioner having passed the Rashtrabasha Praveen Poorvardha examination. The aforesaid documents read in the light of educational qualification prescribed would indicate that the same meets the requirement of the minimum educational qualification prescribed in the notification.

11. However, respondent No.3 in its endorsement Annexure-T has given the following reasons while rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner:

"«±Àé «zÁå®AiÀÄzÀ°è ©.J ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ©.Er ¥ÀzÀ«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß C¨sÀå¹¹zÀÄÝ, DzÀgÉ ©.J ¥ÀzÀ«AiÀÄ°è »A¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß LaÒPÀ «µÀAiÀĪÁV C¨sÀå¹¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ºÁUÀÆ ©.Jqï ¥ÀzÀ«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀ vÀzÀ£ÀAvÀgÀ ¥ÀzÀ« vÀvÀìªÀiÁ£À ¥ÀzÀ«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀÆgÉʹgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ «zÁåºÀðvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß wgÀ¸ÀÌj9ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ"

12. The said reasoning assigned by respondent No.2 Appellate Authority does not refer either to the qualification acquired by the petitioner as noted above or to the qualification prescribed by respondent No.2 in the Notification. The reasoning assigned in the impugned order would also not indicate whether the petitioner possessed the required qualification as "Hindi being one of the method of teaching" or whether equivalent qualification acquired by the petitioner was not meeting the requirement of the Notification? Without adverting to this crucial aspect of the matter, assigning reason completely unconnected cannot be accepted.

13. In that view of the matter, the order at Annexure-T is set aside, and the matter is remitted to respondent No.2 – KPSC to reconsider the grounds urged by the petitioner in his objection specifically with reference to the qualification prescribed in the Notification and the qualification acquired by the petitioner and if the petitioner is found eligible, appropriate order in this regard be passed within an outer limit of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

SD/- JUDGE

VNP*/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16