- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1761 WP No. 100896 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 100896 OF 2022 (S-RES) BETWEEN: B. ANASUYA D/O CHINTAMANI RAO, AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. SDA IN SRI. HAMPI VIRUPAKHESWAR SWAMY, 1ST GRADE COLLEGE, R/O. DOOR NO.381, 6TH WARD, 4TH CROSS, HAMPI ROAD, HOSPET, TQ. HOSPET, DIST. BALLARY- 583201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DINESH M KULKARNI, AND SMT. VIBHAVI INAAMDAR, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU- 560001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, TECHNICAL BUILDING, PALACE ROAD -560001. 3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, KALABURGI- 585101. 4. THE PRESIDENT/SECRETARIAT ZILLA MADAKARI NAYAKA EDUCATION TRUST, (R) K. B. BADAVANE, OPP. FORT, CHITRADURGA, TQ. AND DIST. CHITRADURGA- 577501. Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1761 WP No. 100896 of 2022 5. THE PRINCIPAL, SRI. HAMPI VIRUPAKSHESHWAR SWAMY, 1ST GRADE COLLEGE, VIDYARANYA, KANNADA UNIVERSITY ROAD, KAMALAPUR, HOSPET, TQ. HOSPET, DIST. BELLARY- 585313. 6. M. PAMPAPATI S/O M. DASAPPA AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. SDA, SRI. HAMPI VIRUPAKSHESHWAR SWAMY, 1ST GRADE COLLEGE, VIDYARANYA, KANNADA UNIVERSITY ROAD, KAMALAPUR, HOSPET, TQ. HOSPET, DIST. BELLARY- 585313. 7. K.R. MANJUNATH NAIK, AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. SDA, SRI. HAMPI VIRUPAKSHESHWAR SWAMY, 1ST GRADE COLLEGE, VIDYARANYA, KANNADA UNIVERSITY ROAD, KAMALAPUR, HOSPET, TQ. HOSPET, DIST. BALLARY- 585313. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA FOR R1 TO R3, SRI T.M. NADAF, ADVOCATE FOR R4 AND R5, SRI VINAY KUMAR BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R6, SRI RAVI HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R7) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS PRAYING TO, TO QUASH THE ORDER BEARING NO.KASHIE/19/RIPI/GUVI/2021-22/NEVI-2DATED 04/12/2021 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-L AS NULL AND VOID. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1761 WP No. 100896 of 2022 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question twin endorsements dated 04.12.2021 and 16.09.2023. 2. Heard learned counsel Ms.Vaibhavi Inaamadar on behalf of Sri.Dinesh M.Kulkarni, appearing for petitioner and learned AGA-Sri.Sharad V. Magadum, appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3, learned counsel Sri.T.M.Nadaf, appearing for respondent Nos.4 and 5, learned counsel Sri.Vinaykumar Bhat, appearing for respondent No.6 and learned counsel Sri.Ravi Hegde, appearing for respondent No.7. 3. The petitioner is working as a Second Division Assistant in the 5th respondent Hampi Virupaksheshwar Swamy, I Grade College, Vidyaranya, Kannada University Road, Kamalapur, Hospet run by the 4th respondent. The issue in the lis is about admission of non-teaching posts to come within the ambit of grant from the hands of the State Government. The petition is preferred in the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1761 WP No. 100896 of 2022 wake of the non-consideration of the case of the petitioner for admission to grant, and the consideration of the case of the 6th respondent, on the score that he was senior to the petitioner. 4. The petitioner is appointed as a Second Division Assistant on 02.11.1995. After about 18 years of service of the petitioner, the college comes to be admitted to grants from the hands of the State. Pursuant to the college getting admitted to grants, the college forwards the proposal of the petitioner for approval on 20.03.2014. Both the petitioner and respondent No.6 had approached this Court in different Writ Petitions. An endorsement comes to be issued against the petitioner on 04.12.2021 on him filing a contempt seeking implementation of the order passed in his favour. 5. The endorsement was that the petitioner was not eligible to be appointed as there was no vacant post since the 6th respondent had already been appointed and he was senior to the petitioner. The other reason rendered in a subsequent endorsement was invoking Rule 8(2) of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1761 WP No. 100896 of 2022 the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Collegiate Education) Rules, 2003. The petition is preferred on the score that the approval of grant of the 6th respondent and ignoring the petitioner is erroneous as well as invocation of the aforesaid Rules to decline the candidature of the petitioner. 6. The learned counsel Ms.Vaibhavi Inaamadar on behalf of Sri.Dinesh M.Kulkarni, would reiterate the averments in the petition seeking a direction for admission of the candidature of the petitioner for the grant from the hands of the State. 7. The learned counsel Sri.T.M.Nadaf, appearing for the 4th and 5th respondents would submit that the 6th respondent who was at that point in time appointed pursuant to the order passed by this Court has now retired from service and the proposal is forwarded to the State Government for considering the case of the petitioner. 8. Learned counsel Sri.Ravi Hegde, who represented the 7th respondent would submit that if the case of the petitioner is considered qua the vacancy that - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1761 WP No. 100896 of 2022 has arisen of the 6th respondent, he would have no grievance. 9. The learned AGA for the State would also submit that if a proposal comes about from the hands of the 4th and 5th respondents the consideration of the case of the petitioner qua vacancy that is now arisen in place of 6th respondent would be met. 10. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsels and perused the material on record. 11. The afore narrated facts, link in the chain of events, the dates of appointments, are all a matter of record. The petitioner, as observed herein above joins on 02.11.1995 as a Second Division Assistant. His appointment is approved pursuant to the college, 5th respondent getting admitted to grant-in-aid. The tussle for admission of the non-teaching staff for grant-in-aid loomed large in the Institute. Writ Petitions had been preferred both by the petitioner and 6th respondent before this Court. The 6th respondent was bought under the ambit - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1761 WP No. 100896 of 2022 of grant, ignoring the claim of the petitioner. The situation today is that the 6th respondent has retired on attaining the age of superannuation. Therefore, there is no impediment today legal or otherwise to consider the case of the petitioner for admission to grant-in-aid in the post of Second Division Assistant as was done in case of the 6th respondent. 12. The learned counsel for the Institute Sri.T.M.Nadaf submits that a proposal is sent or, if not sent will be sent in the next three weeks with regard to the recommending the case of the petitioner for admission to grant-in-aid. 13. The submission of the learned AGA in the event the proposal comes about from the Institution the same would be considered in accordance with law and appropriate orders would be passed and communicated to the petitioner. 14. Insofar as the 7th respondent is concerned he is nothing to do with the appointment against the vacancy of the 6th respondent. Therefore, he cannot have any - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1761 WP No. 100896 of 2022 grievance if the case of the petitioner is considered qua vacancy that is now arisen out of the retirement of the 6th respondent. 15. In the light of the aforesaid circumstances I deem it appropriate to pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed (ii) The impugned endorsements stand quashed. (iii) The Institution if not already communicated shall communicate its proposal for admission of the petitioner to grant-in-aid and the State shall consider the same in accordance with law owing to the vacancy that is arisen out of the superannuation of the 6th respondent. (iv) The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits that would flow from the consideration and admission of the petitioner to grant-in-aid. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1761 WP No. 100896 of 2022 (v) The said exercise of communication between the parties and an order being passed shall conclude within three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE RHR/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 67