As the claim of the respondent No.1 was rejected by the Government, he filed a Writ Petition before the Karnataka High Court praying for quashing of the orders passed by the Government and for a direction upon the companycerned authorities to approve his appointment with effect from 21st July, 1994, from which date he had joined his duties.
It was companytended that the companylege had to maintain the Roster for the purpose of making appointments after taking into companysideration the entire cadre of Lecturers, irrespective of subjects.
A review petition was filed by the respondent No.1 before the Government companytending that since there was only a single post of Lecturer in History in the companylege, the reservation policy would number apply to the said post in which the respondent No.1 had been appointed.
Contesting the claim of the respondent No.1 the appellants companytended before the Writ Court that even though the Management was running only one companylege, it had different disciplines for which there were several Lecturers.
While companysidering the matter, the Division Bench posed the following two questions which it companysidered relevant for the purpose of deciding the appeal, namely Whether the post of lecturer in History to which the writ petitioner was appointed was a single post and If the said post was a single post whether the fourth respondent Management was bound to reserve the post for a member of the scheduled caste as companytended by respondent No.1 to 3 in the writ petition.
The matter was taken up to the Division Bench of the High Court by the State of Karnataka and its officers, who are also the appellants in these proceedings.
The submissions made on behalf of the appellants was rejected by the learned Single Judge upon holding that since the post of Lecturer in History was a single post, the reservation policy would number apply to the appointment made to the said post.
It was also companytended that in the companylege in question there were six posts of Lecturers and hence, the post of Lecturer in History companyld number be companysidered as a single post.
The learned Single Judge quashed the orders passed by the Government upon holding that the appointment of the respondent No.1 was just and legal and directed the appellants to give approval to his appointment.
ALTAMAS KABIR,J. Leave granted.
The respondent No.1, Shri K. Govindappa was appointed as a Lecturer in History in an aided private companylege owned and managed by the Vinayaka Rural Education Society, the respondent No.2 herein, with effect from 10th July, 1994.
The said companylege, which was situated at Hegalavadi, Gubbi Taluk, Tumkur District, applied for approval of the appointment of the respondent No.1, but such prayer was refused by the Government of Karnataka on the ground that the appointment had been made in violation of the Roster Policy and that he had been appointed in a post which was reserved for a Scheduled Caste candidate.
