Curiously enough, respondent No.1 did number challenge the selection and appointment of the above named two candidates, Malleshappa and Siddegora.
52603 of 2003 and 54201 of 2003 and the order dated 03.12.2002 passed by the Education Appellate Tribunal in EAT No.16 of 1996.
The Tribunal further numbericed the relevant provisions of the Education Act and finally came to the companyclusion that the respondent was serving the College as temporary part time Lecturer which is evident from the attendance register maintained by the College.
23.07.1995 and to pay him all pecuniary benefits w.e.f.
Accordingly, respondent No.1 approached the Tribunal and prayed for regularization of his services.
23.07.1995.
As a matter of fact, respondent No.1 was allowed to serve the institution temporarily on the post of Lecturer purely on ad hoc basic.
The High Court dismissed the writ petitions by judgment and order dated 20.09.2006 and refused to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal also numbericed the certificate said to have been issued on 22.07.1995 certifying that T.D. Viswanath was working as Lecturer in History in the College on part time temporary basis.
On the basis of those facts, the Division Bench refused to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
The facts of the case lie in a narrow companypass Respondent No.1 T.D. Viswanath, in Civil Appeal arising out SLP C No.
Consequently, posts were advertised and one B.T. Krishnamurthy, who is appellant in Civil Appeal arising out of the Special Leave Petition No.
Respondent No.1 first filed a writ petition before the Karnataka High Court, but the same was dismissed with liberty to him to approach the companypetent forum i.e. Education Appellate Tribunal.
In the year 1998, Director of Pre University Education Board by companymunication dated 24.08.1998 asked the Society to fill up the remaining three posts from reserved category in order to obtain the approval for the teaching staff.
As numbericed above, the Tribunal on the basis of some entries made in the registers maintained by the College passed the impugned order for regularization of the services with all monetary benefits.
27031 of 2011 was appointed as Lecturer.
There was also numberevidence to show that the appointment of respondent number1 was temporary or on part time.
Instead a writ petition was filed by the respondent No.1 seeking regularization of his services on the post of Lecturer in History with all companysequential benefits.
The said writ petition was dismissed on 29.10.1996 by the High Court on the ground of alternative remedy of appeal available before the Education Appellate Tribunal in short, the Tribunal .
Thereafter, the Society issued another advertisement dated 03.05.1996 inviting applications from eligible candidates for the post of lecturer and one R. Siddegora was appointed as Lecturer in History on probation for a period of two years.
By the impugned judgment and order, a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court dismissed the appeals and affirmed the order dated 20 0f 2006 passed by a learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos.
1812 of 2006 and 1865 of 2006, the same have been heard and disposed of by this companymon judgment.
31770 of 1995 before the Karnataka High Court seeking a mandamus directing the Society of the College to reinstate him in service with all companysequential benefits and further direction was sought number to make any appointment in his place.
Pending appeal, the Tribunal passed interim order dated 17.12.1996, restraining the Society and the Principal of the College from appointing any person to the post of Lecturer.
The Tribunal proceeded on the basis of some entries made in different registers of the College and the certificate dated 27.04.1991 allegedly issued by the Principal of the College certifying that the respondent T.D.Viswanath worked as part time Lecturer in the institution from July 1990 to March 1991.
Subsequently, the Society issued another advertisement dated 03.05.1996 inviting applications from eligible candidates for the post of Lecturer History .
The said T.S. Malleshappa joined the said post of Lecturer, but within a year he left the service and joined M.Phil Course.
The respondent No.1 ultimately approached the Tribunal.
He did number even examine himself before the Tribunal.
Along with the said appeal, an application for companydonation of delay was also filed.
27130 of 2011 in short respondent number1 alleged to have been appointed as a Lecturer in Sri Basaveswara Junior College in short, the companylege run by Sri Basaveswara Education Society in short, the Society .
The appellant will be entitled to all service and pecuniary benefits attached to service.
The said Malleshappa joined and companytinued for about a year and thereafter he left service and joined M.Phil Course.
Consequently, a writ petition was filed before the High Court and thereafter an appeal before the Tribunal seeking regularisation of his services.
In the prospectus of the College for the years 1992 93 and 1993 94 the name of respondent finds place as a Lecturer.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the appellants herein the Society and B.T. Krishnamurthy filed separate writ petitions challenging the order passed by the Tribunal.
The case of respondent No.1, T.D. Viswanath before the Tribunal was that he was appointed to the post of Lecturer in History on 28.06.1990 against a clear vacancy available in the College.
The Society and B.T. Krishnamurthy then preferred intra companyrt appeals before the Division Bench of the High Court which were heard and dismissed in terms of the impugned judgment and order dated 11.07.2011.
From the date of appointment, he was assigned the work for development of literacy and other curriculum.
However, the Tribunal by order dated 03.12.2002, allowed the appeal filed by respondent No.1 and directed the Society to reinstate respondent No.1 in service w.e.f.
The Tribunal further directed the Society to regularize the services of respondent No1.
Pursuant to the said advertisement, respondent No.1 applied for the said post and was called for interview, but he was number selected and in his place one T.S. Malleshappa was selected for the said post.
Hence, these appeals.
For the first time in the year 1995, several posts of Lecturers in the College were advertised.
The Tribunal further declared the appointment of B.T. Krishnamurthy as illegal and improper.
Again after interview, one R. Siddegora was appointed as a Lecturer History for a period of two years.
Y.EQBAL,J. Leave granted.
Since these two appeals arose out of the companymon judgment and order dated 11.07.2011 passed in Writ Appeal Nos.
It was alleged that during the year 1995 when the institution was admitted for grant in aid by the Government he was working in the same institution.
After the selection process and interview, respondent No.1 was number selected rather one T.S. Malleshappa was selected for the said post.
Pursuant to that, respondent No.1 T.D. Viswanath also applied for the post of Lecturer in History on 22.06.1995, but he was number selected for the said post,.
Respondent No.1 thereafter filed an appeal before the Tribunal challenging his termination removal from the post of Lecturer.
In the meantime, respondent No.1 filed a writ petition being No.
However on 22.07.1995, without any previous numberice, the appellant institution called upon him and directed number to companye for duty in future.
The case of the appellant institution was that the institution had number issued any appointment order either permanently or temporarily appointing him to work in the institution.
The respondent No.1 and 3 are directed to reinstate the appellant in service from 23.7.1995.
