A Manja Naik Case

IN THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATiVE TRIBUNAL AT.
BdNGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20," DAy oF luly, 2oL7
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MT.]USTICE A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA, JUDICTRI MEMETR
AND
THE HON,BLE STi V.P.BALIGAR, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
I\PPLICATION NUMBER 7468 OF 2013

BETWEEN
Sri D.Manja Naik i

S/o Late Devela Naik,
Aged about 41 years,
. Working as Assistant Teacher (Hindi)
Government High School,
Mathugaru Village, Singhabidre post,
Via Mandagadde, Thirtahalli Taluk,
Shimoga District,
Permanently residing at
Kalanakatte Village, Hiriyur post,
Bhadravathi Taluk, Shimoga District. APPLICANT
(By Sri A.V.Bhat, Advocate for
M/s Subba Rao and Co., Advocates)
.AND-
1. State of Karnataka
Represented by its Secretary,
Department of Education,
. (Primary and Secondary),
M.S.Building, Bangalore-560 001.
2. The Joint Director of
Public Instructions,
Office of the Commissioner for
Public Instructions,
Bangalore Division,
Nrupathunga Road,
Bangalore-560 001.
(Sri S.Thavaresh Naik, Government Pleader
for the Respondents)
Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the

learned Government Pleader for the respondents.
2. The applicant was one of the candidates for selection to
the post of Assistant Master Grade-II (Hindi) in High School
and he was not selected because he had certain certificate

which was not recognized as per the selection authorities done
and his question is rejected. In A.No.7S2/20O4 c/w

A.No.2B3l2004 this Tribunal in its order dated 03.10.2008
allowed the application and passed the following order:
12) In the light of the above discussion we have

made, we are of the opinion that the Certificates
produced by the Applicants are valid and are
recognized. Both the applicants had possessed
the required qualifications for the purpose of
selection to the post of High School Teachers
(HinQi). Therefore, we allow the apptications and
quash the impugned endorsements bearing No.A-
l/Prou. Sha. Sh i. Ne. 0 1/ 2OO3 -04 dated 1 6. 1 2. 200 3
- Annexure-Al1 in A.No.752/2004 and Anndxure-
A5 in A.No.823/2004. We hereby direct the
respondents to consider the case of the
Applicants and issue appointment orders to both
the Appticants to the post of High Schoot teachers
(llindi) in accordance with law within 3 months
from the date of receipt of this order.
t
3. Since the order of the Tribunal was silent on the question

I
of seniority as well as notional fixation of pay, the authorities
have rejected the representation of the applicant holding that
he is not eligible for seniority and notional fixation of pay vide
notification dated 06.09.2012. Aggrieved to rejection of

fixation of notional pay, the applicant has filed this application
again. The learned counsel for the applicant has relied on the
decision of this Tribunal in A.No.2312l2OlO c/w 7509/2010
passed on 28.03.2012 in the case oF DR.. S.JAYASHRI &
OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS in which

this Tribunal has held that whenever a candidate's appointment
is done later due to the fault of the selection authorities, such
candidates witl be eligible for notional fixation qf pay as well as
seniority. The Tribunal has relied upon the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of DR. 'ARCHANA
cHouHAN PUNDTR VS. STATE OF M.P & .ORS. [2011 AIR
SCW 12511 in para 13 which read as follows:
" In our view the date on which the order for

regularization was issued was purely fortuituous
and the same could not be made basis for
depriving the appellant of her legitimate right to
get admission as on in-service candidate". At the
cost of repetition it needs to be emphasized that in
terms of the order passed by the learned single
judge in writ petition No.2i58 of 2004, the
concerned authorities were required to consider the
appellant's case for regularization of service and
pass appropriate orders within three months, but
the needful was done after a long time gap of
almost three years. Even after framing of the 2005
Rules, the State Government took two years to
complete the exercise for regularization of the
services of Medical officers appointed on contract
basis. If the State Government had issued order of
regularization before 5-3-2007 ie., the last date
fixed for receipt of application, the appellant would
have been saved of the harassment, mental agony
and financial loss suffered by her on account of
unwarranted and forced litigation, In any case, no
premium could be. given to the respondents for
their contumacious conduct of not complying with
the High Court order and unexplained delpy in
issuing the order for regularization of the
a ppel ta nt's se rvice.'"
4. Accordingly the learned counsel for the applicant prays
that direction may be given to the respondents to consider the
case of the applicant on par with the case of Dr.Jayashrri supra

and extend the benefit of fixation of notional pay as well as the
seniority.
t
5. The learned Government pleader for the respondents has

I
opposed the application on the ground that this Tribunal, while
directing respondents to appoint the applicant in its earlier

order dated 03.09.2008 in A.No.752l2004 c/w 832/2004 did
not direct the respondents to give the benefit of seniority and
notional fixation of pay.
6. We have gone through the records and gone through the
decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant.
It is Very clear that the applicant was uniustifiably excluded

from the recruitment and based on the direction of this
Tribunal, he was given appointment letter and the applicant
was not at fault for his belated appointmeht. Hence, he is
.
entitled for notional fixation of pay and is also entitled for the
benefit as given in the case of Dr. S.Jayashri in
A.No.2313/2010 c/w 7509/2010, and as held in Dr. Archana
Chouhan Pundir's case cited supra. We are of the opinion that
the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr.
Archana's case is squarely applicable to the present case on

hand and therefore, we hold that the applicant is entitled for
lJ,'t-r--
.---.
Accordingly, we pass the following:
ORDER
Application is allowed and the impugned
order bearing No.a,l(Qrs) dazpEde 0112005-06 dated
06.09.2012 at Annexure-A6 is quashed. The
respondents 2 and 3 are directed to exteniJ the

benefit of notional flxation of pay and given
seniority at appropriate place on par with those
who have been selected in the.same recruitment
process, within three months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. . He is entitled for
other consequential benefits, if any.

A Manja Naik Case

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Manja Naik Case

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Manja Naik Case

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATiVE TRIBUNAL AT.

DATED THIS THE 20," DAy oF luly, 2oL7

THE HON,BLE STi V.P.BALIGAR, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

I\PPLICATION NUMBER 7468 OF 2013

Sri D.Manja Naik i

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the

the post of Assistant Master Grade-II (Hindi) in High School

and he was not selected because he had certain certificate

and his question is rejected. In A.No.7S2/20O4 c/w

12) In the light of the above discussion we have

3. Since the order of the Tribunal was silent on the question

he is not eligible for seniority and notional fixation of pay vide

notification dated 06.09.2012. Aggrieved to rejection of

OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS in which

candidates witl be eligible for notional fixation qf pay as well as

seniority. The Tribunal has relied upon the judgment of the

cHouHAN PUNDTR VS. STATE OF M.P & .ORS. [2011 AIR

SCW 12511 in para 13 which read as follows:

" In our view the date on which the order for

4. Accordingly the learned counsel for the applicant prays

that direction may be given to the respondents to consider the

case of the applicant on par with the case of Dr.Jayashrri supra

5. The learned Government pleader for the respondents has

directing respondents to appoint the applicant in its earlier

not direct the respondents to give the benefit of seniority and

notional fixation of pay.

6. We have gone through the records and gone through the

decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant.

It is Very clear that the applicant was uniustifiably excluded

benefit as given in the case of Dr. S.Jayashri in

A.No.2313/2010 c/w 7509/2010, and as held in Dr. Archana

Chouhan Pundir's case cited supra. We are of the opinion that

the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr.

Archana's case is squarely applicable to the present case on

Application is allowed and the impugned

order bearing No.a,l(Qrs) dazpEde 0112005-06 dated

06.09.2012 at Annexure-A6 is quashed. The

respondents 2 and 3 are directed to exteniJ the

receipt of a copy of this order. . He is entitled for

other consequential benefits, if any.

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.