High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt V Mariyamma vs The Secretary To Government Of … on 25 August, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Smt V Mariyamma vs The Secretary To Government Of … on 25 August, 2009
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
WP No.85}/2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

CIRCUIT BENCH AT DI-IARWAD

DATED THIS THE 251% DAY OF' AUGUST, 2Qr,;39- 5   ;_ A' 

BEFORE _ V
THE I-ION'BLE MR.JUsT1CE:;}}fi1?if:'J.OUNJAIQ:  L
WRIT PETITION Nofssi/é00_$1S.--RES}'V_--v_'.A" - = I 
BETWEEN: I   I I 

SM'? v MARIYAMMA

D/O VERUPAKSHAPPA _ 

AGED4"/'YEARS  _ --.  ;

OCC TEACHERVLFAYANAGARA Composma'
PREUNIVERSITYCOLLEGE    ..

MUNIRABAD     _  - 
'FQ&DIS"F KOPPAL   =i   '--.'=......,.PETITIONER

(BY SRLH.M..DH;iRIC§CND4;"£§i3AI?'.3..  I
AND:
I. THE SECRETARY T'().vGO\'/Ii3--R_'I§l4E\;I ENT OF KARN ATAKA
DEPT.OF*F_.VDUCATION~.v I

Ms BUILDING '~ *
.. «.3-ISANGALORE "  _ V

'I2; ,  THECOM1Vz_1_ssIONER OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS

 " ~ NR.U4PA1f'r:IuNO_A ROAD
 B,wG_ALO RB V 

3. ' _ THE_DEPU_TY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
 INS--TR.Uf?i"lONS
1«i.OP?.AL DJST
KGPPAL

 _ 'WHE SECRETARY

" 'VEERSI-IAIVA VIDHYAVARDHANA SANGHA
GANDFHNAGARA
BELLARY



WP No.851/2008

: 2 :
5. THE CHAERMAN

VIJAYANAGARA COMPOSITE

PRE-UNIVERSITY COLLEGE

MUNIRABAD  ' ,   ~
To & DEST KOPPAL. ...RESP.(;1NDENT_S'  * _

(BY SRI.R.I<.HATTI, I-ICGP FOR R1 To 3, _. ~ .
SRIARUN LNEELOPANT, ADV FOI'<"R4,. A 
R5 SD)  _ 
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER'ARTICLES.226'ANDi227 
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA "PRAYING TO DIREeT..THE R3 -. '
AND R4 HEREIN TO SELECT AND"~APP.OINT THE'~PE?I'1T:ONER TO
THE POST OF ASST. TEACHER IN AR.Ts--,. IN PURSUANT OF THE
NOTIFICATION ISSUED 13Y..THE,HR4,*HofN Ia. 1o.20o'7~PRODUcED
AT ANNEXURE-N AND ET'éL{' 2   

THIS PETITION COMINOA.ONpVFOR--"PREi;IVM«INARY HEARING
IN 'E' GROUP, THIS' DAY, THE 'cOrjRTjMxADE«.:TIIE FOLLOWING:

1.   as a teacher in 431
respontienitfInstiittiti.on»A.oin-iiiQ6.1986. Suffice it to say that

on 18.10:2f)_C)'7,, the'eéiihtirespondent issued a Notification

inviting iiapplica’ti–Ons_’__&for the post of Assistant Teacher in

ml[ie’petitiOner also was one of the applicants. The

‘grié;<zanceVii.'ef petitioner is that she was not called for

inteirsziew ohnfthe ground that she had crossed the permissible

to agelimit. Hence, this writ petition questioning the action of

ithie respondents in not inviting the petitioner for interview.

WP No.851/2008

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that having
regard to the Rules and Regulation of the Governmentpgin
regard to the Public Instruction Department, V.
ought to have been given the weightage of
institution to an extent of 10 ye’ars”in_
petitioner would be eligible candidate;.__ A it it A L it

3. Learned counsel for that
indeed claim of the it was
found that she was not on the basis
of over age. i-jfinvneiiure-R3 (shown as
R-4 in the iobjections) which is a merit list.

4. I papers. Assuming that the

Govefirniment Niotificatiovn as well as the instruction would

rcome to .AtheA7-aid ‘of the petitioner in giving a leverage in

ii’rCs’pect””age’.b’ut on merits it is found that she has secured

avera.ge»–._rnari%is of 43.03 and she stands at S1.No.8O in the list

i Jof candidates. Indeed, it has to be noticed that it is not as if

‘r_he– respondents have declined to interview the petitioner on

‘V -»-the ground that she is over age but also having regard to the fl

WP No.851/2008

6. Mr.R.K.Hatti, learned I-ICGP is permitted to

of appearance within four weeks. .. V
y

Jm/–