Aravind Kumar, J.
1. By consent of learned Advocates appearing for the parties, matter is taken up for final disposal. Heard. Perused the records.
2. Petitioner is said to have completed Rashtrabhasha Praveen Examination from Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha conducted in the year 1993 apart from completing her Pre-University Course (PUC). Petitioner was appointed through an agency as a Hindi Teacher in third respondent school on honorarium basis with effect from 21.07.2
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
07, Annexure-E and it is said to have been renewed from time-to-time for the year 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 Annexures-F, G, H and K respectively. Petitioner is working as a Hindi Teacher in third respondent school till today against a vacant sanctioned post.3. It is the contention of petitioner that she has passed Hindi Shikshak Examination conducted by Karnataka Secondary Education Board, which is equivalent to B.Ed. as per Government Order dated 16.08.2003 where under it has been declared that Hindi Shikshak Course conducted by Karnataka Mahila Hindi Seva Samithi, Bangalore, Karnataka Hindi Prachara Samithi, Bangalore, Mysore Hindi Prachara Parishad and others are equivalent to B.Ed. Course on two conditions namely, that the holder of such degree must have passed Pre-University Course with regional language as a medium of instructions at PUC level and must have studied Hindi and one other language as Teaching Method vide Annexure-L and petitioner though possess said qualification respondent had not included her name in the previous selection list and when approached she was informed orally that she is not qualified as she has not studied equivalent course to B.Ed. Course and as such, she made a detailed representations on 08.04.2015 and 27.11.2015, Annexures-M and N requesting to consider same and on account of non-consideration of said representations by granting service weightage and recruiting the petitioner for the post of Assistant Teacher in Hindi Subject in Morarji Desai Residential School, petitioner is before this Court.4. It is also contended that Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.20204-364/2011 and other connected matters has partly allowed the writ petitions and granted the relief namely benefit of service weightage to all the Teachers and Principals appointed on or before 2004-2005 being held as entitled to the benefit of service weightage as per Recruitment Regulations, 2011, by order dated 13.07.2012, which came to be affirmed in W.A.No.5127/2012 and other connected matters by order dated 28.02.2013 and Special Leave Petition filed by third parties having been dismissed by order dated 29.11.2013, petitioner is entitled for similar benefits.5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterates the grounds urged in the writ petition. He has also made available the copy of Order / Errata dated 08.12.2010 where under Government of Karnataka Education Department has clarified that the order dated 16.08.2003 (Annexure-L) in the present writ petition has been ordered as under:"4(3). This order shall come into force prospectively w.e.f. 16-08-2003."6. It is further contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner has passed B.Ed. Course in the year 1995 and as such, Government order dated 16.08.2003, Annexure-L, would not be applicable retrospectively in view of Errata dated 08.12.2010 having been issued. As such, petitioner claims that she is entitled for being appointed as Assistant Teacher in Hindi Subject.7. Per contra, Sri. E.S. Indiresh, learned AGA appearing for respondents would submit that applicability of Government order dated 16.08.2003, Annexure-L, as well as Errata dated 08.12.2010 issued is an issue required to be examined by the third respondent and as such, third respondent would examine the representations of petitioner dated 08.04.2015 and 27.11.2015 - Annexures-M and N respectively and pass orders on merits. Hence, he prays for suitable orders being passed.8. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and as noticed herein above from the facts, petitioner is contending that Notification -Annexure-L dated 16.08.2003 is inapplicable, since it is made applicable prospectively. As to whether petitioner would be entitled for grant of service weightage or otherwise, is required to be examined by third respondent in the light of representations submitted by the petitioner on 08.04.2015 and 27.11.2015 -Annexures-M and N and as such, this Court is of the considered view that ends of justice would be met if third respondent is directed to consider the representations of petitioner dated 08.04.2015 and 27.11.2015 - Annexures-M and N respectively and pass orders expeditiously at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In the light of observations made herein above, writ petition stands disposed of.Ordered accordingly.
"2017 (2) AIR (Kar) R 194" == "2017 Lab IC 2058" == "2017 (3) KCCR 2640" == "2017 (5) KantLJ 690,"