Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Karnataka High Court has overturned a single bench judgment that had cancelled the appointment of Dr. M. David to the post of Associate Professor, Zoology Department at Karnataka University on the grounds that he could not claim caste status because he was born in Andhra Pradesh.

The verdict has been overturned by a division bench of Justices S Sunil Dutt Yadav and Umesh M Adiga, who cited the initial petitioner's lack of locus standi in the selection process. Notably, the division bench did not address the contentions about the caste certificate.

It was observed that for the purpose of being aggrieved, the petitioner was required to demonstrate that in the event he had succeeded, he would have been entitled to be appointed. "Where there are other eligible persons, attack to the selection of respondent No.4 (David) at the instance of the petitioner is impermissible, in the absence of arraying the others as parties," said the court.

Further, the court said, "If the petition is granted, it will be on the basis of Public Interest Litigation, which is not permitted in Service matters."

One Dr H Krishna Ram had filed a petition before the single-judge bench which was allowed by the court. That petition challenged David's appointment, claiming that he failed to provide Academic Performance Indicator (A.P.I.) and Performance Based Appraisal System (P.B.A.S.) as required by UGC Regulations 2010. It was also stated that because David had migrated from Andhra Pradesh, he was ineligible to run for Scheduled Caste candidate in Karnataka.

Apart from David, the division noted that there were others on the merit list who were said to be eligible, including Dr Aladakatti RH (Sl. No.2)  and Dr CBGanesh (Sl. No.4), and none of them had been declared parties in the proceedings.

It was also noted that the petitioner had not called his non-selection into doubt, nor had he questioned the selection process; instead, the appeal was limited to David's putative ineligibility based on his caste certificate. "If that were the case, the proper course of action would be to challenge the validity of the caste certificate and face the consequences," said the court.

Furthermore, the court dismissed the State's allegation that a Validity Certificate should have been obtained in accordance with Rules 6 and 9 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment, etc.) Rules, 1992.

“There was no such pleading on record before the learned Single Judge and fresh contention regarding the same at this stage ought not to be entertained,”  court further added.

Accordingly, court allowed the appeal and also set aside the previous order of the single judge bench.

Case Title: Dr M David And Department of High Education & Others.

Statute: Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment, etc.) Rules, 1992