Reshma Sultana vs The State of Karnataka & Ors. Case

Reshma Sultana vs The State of Karnataka & Ors. Case

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले



REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3484 OF 2022
Reshma Sultana …Appellant
Versus
The State of Karnataka & Ors. …Respondents
J UD G M E N T
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 24.09.2020 passed by the Division Bench of the High
Court of Karnataka, Bench at Dharwad, in W.A. No. 100066 of 2020 by
which the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the said
appeal preferred by the appellant herein – original respondent No.10,
the appellant herein – original respondent No.10 - Reshma Sultana has
preferred the present appeal.
2. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:-
1
2.1 That respondent No. 10 herein – Ilyas Ahmed Patwegar – original
writ petitioner applied for the post of Urdu Teacher in Nehru Arts,
Science and Commerce Degree College, Hubli, run by Anjuman-E-Islam
Education Board. He was appointed on 1.7.2002. Later, an
advertisement was published in the local newspaper on 26.8.2007
calling for the filling up of posts of Urdu Lecturers in the same College.
The original writ petitioner also submitted his application.
Interviews for different posts were conducted on 23.10.2007. The
Management informed the Commissioner of Collegiate Education that in
respect of Urdu subject, it was resolved to appoint a highly
knowledgeable subject expert and to seek his opinion before making any
appointment and accordingly Urdu Teacher’s appointment was
postponed. On 13.3.2009 the Management informed the original writ
petitioner that the appellant herein - Reshma Sultana has been
appointed as Urdu Lecturer. The management sought approval for her
appointment from the second respondent - Commissioner of Collegiate
Education. The second respondent - Commissioner of Collegiate
Education sought management’s explanation as to how the appellant
herein could have been appointed without seeking opinion of a subject
expert. However, in January 2010, the Commissioner of Collegiate
Education approved the appointment of the appellant herein.
2
2.2 Feeling aggrieved, the original writ petitioner filed the writ petition
before the learned Single Judge. By a detailed judgment and order, the
learned Single Judge quashed the appointment of the original
respondent No. 10 – appellant herein and also issued further directions
to the management to forward necessary documents and proposals to
the concerned authorities for the purpose of appointing the original writ
petitioner as a full-time Lecturer in Urdu subject.
2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order
passed by the learned Single Judge quashing the appointment of the
appellant as an Urdu Lecturer and issuing the direction to forward
necessary documents and proposals to the concerned authorities for the
purpose of appointing the original writ petitioner as a full-time Lecturer in
Urdu subject, the appellant herein preferred the writ appeal before the
Division Bench. By the impugned judgment and order, the Division
Bench has dismissed the said appeal and has confirmed the judgment
and order passed by the learned Single Judge.
2.4 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order passed by the Division Bench dismissing the writ appeal and
confirming the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge,
quashing the appointment of the appellant herein as an Urdu Lecturer,
the original respondent No. 10 before the learned Single Judge and the
appellant before the Division Bench of the High Court, whose
3
appointment has been set aside by the learned Single Judge confirmed
by the Division Bench of High Court has preferred the present appeal.
3. While issuing notice on 08.01.2021, this Court passed the
following order:-
“XXXXXXXXXX
Issue notice limited to the question as to whether
the High Court in a writ petition, after holding the
appointment of the petitioner to be not valid, could have
directed for appointment of respondent No.10 who was
neither recommended by the Committee nor approved by
the competent authority for the selection in pursuance of
2007 recruitment, returnable within six weeks.”
4. Therefore, the short question, which is posed for the consideration
of this Court is whether after holding the appointment of the appellant to
be not valid, the High Court could have thereafter directed for
appointment of respondent No.10 herein – original writ petitioner, who
was neither recommended by the Committee nor approved by the
competent authority for the selection in pursuance of 2007 recruitment.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 10
herein – original writ petitioner has vehemently submitted that he is
better qualified than the appellant herein. It is submitted that the
appellant has only passed SLET whereas respondent No.10 – original
writ petitioner has passed both NET and SLET; the original writ petitioner
has also scored 65% marks in regular M.A. It is further submitted that
the original writ petitioner has twenty-five years of experience in teaching
4
the post-graduate students, whereas the appellant has no experience in
teaching the post-graduate students. Apart from that, the original writ
petitioner has been awarded Ph.D. in Urdu in February, 2021 by the
University of Mumbai. It is the case on behalf of the respondent No.10
herein – original writ petitioner that therefore while quashing and setting
aside the appointment of the appellant herein – the learned Single Judge
has rightly directed to forward necessary documents and proposals to
the concerned authorities for the purpose of appointing the original writ
petitioner as a full-time Lecturer in Urdu subject.
6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties, we have considered the fact that the learned Single Judge has,
on appreciation of entire material on record, specifically found that the
entire selection process was vitiated by fraud and there was a
manipulation of the record and no resolution, on the basis of which the
appellant was appointed was in existence and there was an
interpolation. Thereafter the learned Single Judge while quashing and
setting aside the appointment of the appellant, which was vitiated by
fraud and manipulation etc. could not have further passed an order
directing to forward necessary documents and proposals to the
concerned authorities for the purpose of appointing the original writ
petitioner as a full-time Lecturer in Urdu subject.
5
6.1 Once the entire selection process was found to be vitiated due to
fraud, collusion and manipulation, thereafter the learned Single judge
ought to have passed the order for a fresh selection after following the
due process of selection as required. It is to be noted that the original
writ petitioner is also seeking appointment pursuant to the very selection
process/recruitment process which is found to be fraudulent and suffers
from manipulation of record. Under the circumstances, the direction
issued by the learned Single Judge, which was not interfered with by the
Division Bench directing to forward the documents of the respondent
No.10 herein – original writ petitioner to consider his case for
appointment is unsustainable.
7. Now, so far as the quashing and setting aside the appointment of
the appellant herein by the learned Single Judge confirmed by the
Division Bench is concerned, apart from the fact that this Court had
issued a limited notice as observed hereinabove, even on merits also
and considering the fact that the entire selection process/recruitment
process was found to be fraudulent and it was found that there was a
manipulation in the resolution and as such no resolution was passed to
appoint the appellant, it cannot be said that the learned Single Judge
committed any error in quashing and setting aside the appointment of
the appellant herein. The same has been righty confirmed by the
Division Bench of the High Court.
6
8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present
appeal succeeds in part. The impugned judgment and order passed by
the Division Bench and that of the learned Single Judge quashing and
setting aside the appointment of the appellant as Urdu Lecturer is hereby
confirmed. However, that part of the direction/order passed by the
learned Single Judge by which the learned Single directed to forward
necessary documents and proposals to the concerned authorities for the
purpose of appointing the original writ petitioner as a full-time Lecturer in
Urdu subject, which is not interfered with by the Division Bench of the
High Court is hereby quashed and set aside. A fresh selection process
be initiated for filling up the post of Urdu Lecturer after following due
process as required and the same shall be monitored and supervised by
respondent No.2 herein - Commissioner of Collegiate Education and this
exercise be completed preferably within a period of three months from
today.
With this, the present appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid
extent. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall
be no order as to costs.
…………………………………..J.
[M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI; …………………………………..J.
MAY 10, 2022. [B.V. NAGARATHNA]
7

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

संविधान की प्रमुख विशेषताओं का उल्लेख | Characteristics of the Constitution of India

100 Questions on Indian Constitution for UPSC 2020 Pre Exam

भारतीय संविधान से संबंधित 100 महत्वपूर्ण प्रश्न उतर