Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT APPEAL NO. 825 OF 2023 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPT. OF LAW JUSTICE (HUMAN RIGHTS) VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001
2. THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION PALACE ROAD BENGALURU-560 001
3. THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION MANGALURU-575 001 ...APPELLANTS (BY SMT. SWETHA KRISHNAPPA, AGA) AND: 1 . RAVI U. S/O U. SRINIVASA RAO - AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS WORKING AS ATTENDER VAIKUNTA BALIGA COLLEGE OF LAW KUNJIBETTU UDUPI-576 102 2 . VAIKUNTA BALIGA COLLEGE OF LAW REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL KUNJIBETTU UDUPI-576 102 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SATISH K., ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2- SERVED - UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO (a) CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND
(b) SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 04.02.2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION No.13340/2018 (S-RES) BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL AND ETC. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 24.09.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
-
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) This appeal is preferred against the order dated 04.02.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.13340/2018 (S-RES).
2. We have heard Smt. Shwetha Krishnappa, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellants and Shri. Satish. K, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1.
3. The writ petitioner/respondent No.1 had sought for a direction to bring the petitioner within the ambit of grant-in-aid at the hands of the State Government with retrospective date from 26.08.2015.
4. The petitioner was appointed as an attender in
Vaikunta Baliga College of Law ('Institution' for short) on 14.11.1992 while the Institution was an unaided Private Educational Institution. The State Government extended grant-in-aid to the Institution by an order dated 26.08.2015. The employees who were not entitled to the grant-in-aid were specifically mentioned in the order itself. The - petitioner's name did not figure in the said list. However, one post of attender was treated as Backlog Vacancy to be filled up by Scheduled Caste candidate by the said order. When the petitioner sought for benefit of grant-in-aid, an
order was passed rejecting the same and holding that since
one post of attender is set apart for filling by appointment of a Scheduled Caste candidate, the benefit cannot be extended to the petitioner. The same was challenged by the petitioner before this Court.
5. The learned Single Judge on considering the
contentions advanced found that the question which requires a consideration is whether the vacancies that existed prior to the Institution coming within the ambit of grant-in-aid are required to be filled up following the roster prepared by the State Government for implementing communal reservation. Relying on the judgment dated 29.04.2015 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.10955/2012, the learned Single Judge held in the negative. It was found that the State had
implemented the judgment dated 29.04.2015 by its order
- dated 21.01.2017 and that the writ petitioner in the instant case cannot be denied the benefits of grant-in-aid.
6. The learned Additional Government Advocate
appearing for the appellants, however, contends that the Institution would be entitled to grant-in-aid only when the conditions of communal reservation are complied with. Referring to ground 9 raised in this Writ Appeal, it is contended that one post of attender was found to be a Backlog Post to be filled up by a Scheduled Caste candidate and since the Institution had initiated the process for selection of Scheduled Caste candidate to the said post, the petitioner could not be granted the benefits of grant-in-aid.
7. The learned Additional Government Advocate has
placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shri.Bhairavnath Shikshan Mandal, Khed v. State of Maharashtra, through The Secretary, Dept. of Education and Sports and others1.
8. We have considered the contentions advanced. It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner was appointed as attender in the Institution on 14.11.1992 and he had 2017 Supreme (Bom) 2052 - continued in service uninterruptedly. The Institution was extended grant-in-aid benefit by Annexure B, Government
Order dated 26.08.2015. The relevant parts of the order
reads as follows:- GOVERNMENT ORDER NO. LAW 49 KLM 2013, BENGALURU DATED: 26.08.2015 As per the points included in the proposal and in that background the following are the teaching and non-teaching posts of Vaikunta baliga Law College and these are included with certain conditions and got approved to be included under the grant-in-aid list and got approved and ordered. Teaching Faculties
Sl. Name Shree/ Posts Reser- Date of Pay Scale
No. Srimathi vation Joining
1 Prakash Kanive.M Principal GM 01.08.1989 UGC scale
2 Shankarmurthy.B.G Assistant GM 01.07.1992 State Pay Scale
Professor (does notpossess, SLET/NET/Ph.D 3 Raghunath K.S Assistant GM 01.07.1996 State Pay Scale Professor (does not possess, SLET/NET/Ph.D 4 Surekha K Assistant GM 13.06.2006 State Pay Scale Professor (does not possess, SLET/NET/Ph.D 5 Preethi Harish Raj Assistant GM 01.07.2006 State Pay Scale Professor (does not possess, SLET/NET/Ph.D
-
6 Nirmala kumari.K Assistant GM 01.07.1993 UGC Pay Scale Professor (SLET Qualification) 7 Nalina N Assistant GM 01.06.2011 UGC Pay Scale Professor (NET Qualification) 8 Prakash Rao D Physical GM 01.07.1993 State Pay Scale Director (does not possess, SLET/NET/Ph.D. 9 SADASHIVA Librarian GM 01.11.2007 State Pay Scale (does possess, not SLET/NET/Ph.D.
The following teaching fraternities, who are working at Vaikunta baliga Law college udupi, were not included under the grant-in-aid and cannot be considered for grant-in-aid and the reason is mentioned against the employee's name.
1. P.S. Jayamol Assistant professor: At the time of recruitment, candidate was 36 years old and hence was not considered for grant in aid process. (Minimum 35 years, for GM candidate)
2. preethi V. Nayak : Appointed after 11/07/2009.
3. Rekha.K: As per the Government orders No: ED/37 UNE/2009,
dated:24/12/2009, the candidate does not possess the minimum educational qualifications as required for the post of Assistant professor / physical director. Hence, her name cannot be considered. Posts appointed by the college administrative council, from the date of recruitment, within two years has to acquire required minimum qualifications of NET/SLET/Ph.d. and with required documents has to -
submit required documents, after examination, those posts will be considered for grant-in-aid process. NON-TEACHING STAFF
Sl. Name Sri/ Smt Post Reser Date of Scale of Pay No. vation Joining 1 Bharathi bai B Superintend GM 16.05.1980 20000-36300
2 Nayana.P FDA GM 12.06.1986 14556-26700 3 Suresh shanai SDA GM 02.11.1991 11600-21000 4 Ananth Ram Naik Librarian GM 07.04.2004 12500-24000
Assistant
5 Ravindra.S Attender GM 01.10.1991 10400-16400 6 Udaya peon ST 01.07.2013 9600-14550 7 Nityananda Peon GM 01.07.2013 9600-14550
prabha 8 Rajesh Naik Peon ST 01.07.2013 9600-14550 At the time of recruitment, all these candidates were age barred and hence, could not be included into aided list.
1. SRI Manjunath Bhat - SDA
2. Sri Sadananda ---peon
3. Sri Dayananda nayak-peon
4. Sri Shankar Nayak-peon The below are the teaching and non-teaching posts which are left out are considered as backlog posts. -
Teaching Posts Non-Teaching Posts Posts Reservation Numbers Posts Reservation Numbers Assistant SC 02 SDA SC 01
Professor Assistant ST 01 Attender SC 01 Professor Peon ST 01
9. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner's name was not included in the list as non-teaching staff not entitled to grant-in-aid. However, one post of attender was admittedly left out and considered as a Backlog Post for
Scheduled Caste candidate. The first condition in the order
states that the reserved posts must be filled within six
months, failing which, sanctioned grant-in-aid will be cancelled. The effect of the order is undoubtedly that the backlog vacancy of attender was liable to be filled up be appointing an Scheduled Caste candidate. It is an admitted fact that the communal reservation in appointment was liable to be followed from the date of sanction of grant-in-aid to the Institution. The grant-in-aid having been sanctioned in the year 2015, there cannot be an argument raised that -
the appointment made in the year 1992 ought to have followed communal reservation.
10. The petitioner, being an employee who was
appointed in the year 1992 and who was not excluded from the benefit of grant-in-aid by Annexure 'B' order, therefore, could not have been denied the benefit on account of the fact that one post of attender was identified as backlog vacancy for Scheduled Caste candidate.
11. We are in agreement with the reasoning and
findings of the learned Single Judge. We find no grounds made out to interfere with the finding of the learned Single Judge in this intra-Court appeal. The appeal therefore fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. All pending interlocutory applications shall stand dismissed. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE cp*