Reshma Sultana vs The State Of Karnataka

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 Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by R Natarajan Date: 2022.05.10

preferred the present appeal.

17:24:45 IST Reason:

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