- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:276 WP No. 113337 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.113337 OF 2015 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: THE PRINCIPAL BASAVESHWAR ENGINEERING COLLEGE, BAGALKOT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.B. HEBBALLI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-01. 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-01. 3. THE COMMISSIONER SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, 5TH FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-01. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 R/W ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION IN No.SaKaNi/B&R/CR-46/2015- 16, DATED:23.09.2015 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3, A COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED HEREIN AS PER ANNEXURE-G & ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:276 WP No. 113337 of 2015 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) The petitioner, who is the Principal of a Private Engineering College that is receiving grant-in-aid, has called in question the third respondent’s order dated 23.09.2015 [Annexure–G]. The third respondent by this order has constituted a committee of Officers who are in-service and retired to look into the circumstances of dismissal of Sri Sadashiv Kembhavi [an Assistant Professor with the Institution] from service and the petitioner’s alleged failure to implement reservation policy in recruitment. The third respondent has also informed the petitioner that all information required by this Committee must be furnished in compliance with Rule 12 of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes [Reservation of Appointment, Etc.] Rules, 1992 [for short, ‘1992 Rules’]. 2. Sri S.B. Hebballi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that merits of the petitioner’s grievance with the impugned order both as regards the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:276 WP No. 113337 of 2015 constitution of the committee and invoking 1992 Rules must be examined in the backdrop of certain indisputable circumstances, and he emphasizes the following as such circumstances. [a] Sri Sadashiv Kembhavi was dismissed from service on certain allegations. The Educational Appellate Tribunal, while entertaining an appeal against such order by the afore, has interfered with the dismissal order, but the Institution has invoked this Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and the writ petition is still pending consideration. [B] The Technical Department within the Technical Directorate of Technical Education, Bengaluru, upon receipt of a complaint from Sri Sadashiv Kembhavi about initiating process for recruitment without adhering to the State’s Reservation Policy, has constituted a Committee. This Committee, after going through the records, has filed its Report dated 20.02.2014 opining that the allegation is incorrect. The committee has observed that though notification was - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:276 WP No. 113337 of 2015 published inviting applications without indicating reservation, such selection process was stopped addressing a communication to the Directorate for permission to issue notification based on the said reservation policy. [c] Sri Sadashiv Kembavi, during the pendency of the proceedings before the Educational Appellate Tribunal, has approached an organization which espouses the cause of backward classes communities and tribes with a similar complaint, and the third respondent has issued the impugned order acting upon such complaint which is forwarded by the organization. 3. Sri S.B. Hebballi canvasses that the third respondent’s order is without jurisdiction and is also arbitrary as there is a complete lack of application of mind. The learned counsel contends that the jurisdiction under the 1992 Rules is to verify records when there are complaints in the matter of appointment but here the complaint is at the instance of a person who is removed from the service, that the merit of such decision is still pending consideration, and - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:276 WP No. 113337 of 2015 that non-application of mind is writ large as the earlier proceedings are not even considered. 4. Sri Praveen K. Uppar, the learned Additional Government Advocate, is heard in the light of these submissions. The learned Additional Government Advocate cannot dispute the factual assertions that the decision to dismiss Sri Sadashiv Kembhavi is pending consideration before this Court or that the Directorate of Technical Education has constituted a Committee that has gone into the same allegation or that the reason for the impugned order is a representation filed by Sri Sadashiv Kembavi when the Educational Appellate Tribunal was examining the merits of the order dismissing him from service. This Court must, apart from these circumstances, should also consider the nature of allegation and the conclusion on an enquiry on such allegation. 5. The allegation against the petitioner is that he initiated recruitment process issuing a notification in the year 2012 without providing for the State’s reservation - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:276 WP No. 113337 of 2015 policy. However, as seen from the Report dated 20.02.2014 filed by the Committee which is constituted by the Directorate of Technical Education, the petitioner had issued such notification based on the prior permission granted by the Director but without indicating the reservation. When this is brought to his knowledge, he has stopped the recruitment process and written to the Director for fresh permission showing the reservation for vacant posts. This largely undermines the allegation of ignoring the State’s reservation policy. 6. The petitioner who helms the affairs of Engineering College is under the superintendence of the Director of Technical Education and the recruitment is also with the permission of the Directorate. This Court must opine that it was therefore incumbent upon the third respondent to call for information before constituting another Committee. As regards the decision to remove Sri. Sadashiv Kembhavi from service, the Institution has availed - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:276 WP No. 113337 of 2015 its remedy, and the matter is now pending consideration before this Court. In the circumstances, this Court must opine that there is no justifiable reason for the impugned order by the third respondent and hence, this order is arbitrary. As such, the petitioner must succeed even independent of the third respondent’s jurisdiction under the 1992 Rules. This Court has also considered the fact that the proceedings relate to the year 2015 and it has been ten years since then. In the light of the afore, the petition is allowed, and the third respondent’s order dated 23.09.2015 [Annexure–G] is quashed. Sd/- (B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE RSH, CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 26