Latest news with #KarnatakaStateAdministrativeTribunal
Time of India
23-04-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Karnataka high court upholds dismissal of civil servant convicted in assault case
Bengaluru: The high court reaffirmed a strong stance on the integrity expected of public servants, declaring that a person convicted of a serious offence is not fit to continue in public service. This observation came while dismissing a petition filed by G Nanjegowda , a second-division assistant formerly employed at District Institute of Education and Training, Bengaluru Urban district. Nanjegowda was convicted in 2011 for an assault committed in 2001 and sentenced to two years' imprisonment, a verdict upheld by the high court in 2016. Following his conviction, he was dismissed from service on Nov 18, 2023. After an unsuccessful appeal before Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, which dismissed his petition on Oct 25, 2024, he approached HC seeking relief. Nanjegowda argued that even Rule 14 of Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 does not provide for automatic dismissal from service when a civil servant is convicted in a criminal case. However, after reviewing the rule, a division bench of Justices Krishna S Dixit and Ramachandra D Huddar noted that dismissal from service on grounds of conviction and sentence in a criminal case involving moral turpitude cannot be faulted, as Rule 14 of 1957 Rules is as clear as the waters of Ganga river. "... A person convicted of a serious offence is not desirable in public service. The offence committed has no nexus to official duties or conditions of service, which is too poor a justification to retain the convict in public service. It goes without saying that if conviction in a criminal case is a bar to public appointment, ipso facto it is a ground for removal from service. An argument to the contrary would strike at the root of reason and logic," the bench added.
Time of India
21-04-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Can't group a caste differently for reservation in jobs, education: Karnataka High Court
Bengaluru: A caste cannot be grouped in one category for reservation in education and another for employment quota , the high court has observed in a recent judgment. In his order, Justice Suraj Govindaraj also directed the state govt to reclassify the ' Balajiga/Banajiga community ' under group B for employment instead of group D. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now In the case at hand, V Sumitra from Kollegal taluk, Mysuru district, applied for the post of a primary schoolteacher and sought reservation under the OBC category. She completed her education showing her caste as 'Balajiga/Banajiga,' which comes under group B. She was appointed as a teacher on Nov 17, 1993. However, on Feb 19, 1996, a notice was issued alleging that for the purpose of employment, she "belongs to group D and not group B", and that the caste certificate issued was not proper or applicable for such reservation. After several rounds of litigation, the appellate authority in the education department and the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal rejected her plea. Sumitra came across a notification issued on Oct 13, 1986, wherein the Balajiga/Banajiga caste was shown to be coming under group B for educational purposes (Article 15(4) of the Constitution) and under group D for employment (Article 16(4) of the Constitution). She challenged the dual classification. She argued that the criteria being the same for both Article 15(4) and 16(4), the same community cannot be classified under different groups. Justice Suraj Govindaraj noted that the term equality before the law would also include the reservation to be equal in all respects – both under Article 15(4) and Article 16(4). "The equal protection of laws would also, in my considered opinion, include reservation, since the protection by way of affirmative action is for the grant of reservation of a particular number of seats in education or a particular number of posts in employment. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Thus, the protection under Article 14 (Constitutional guarantee of equality) being subject to Article 15(4) and Article 16(4), there cannot be a discrimination of reservation between Article 15(4) and Article 16(4)," the judge added. "It is declared that the classification of the Balajiga/Banajiga community for the purpose of employment, being different from that for the purpose of education, is discriminatory and illegal… and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The state, having classified the Balajiga/Banajiga community as group B for education purposes, is required to classify the very same community as group B for employment purposes and not under group D," the judge observed. "It is declared that the petitioner belonging to the Balajiga/Banajiga community would be entitled to reservation for employment under Group B, and as such, her employment as a primary schoolteacher is directed to be continued by availing of such benefit," Justice Suraj Govindaraj said while quashing the order passed by the divisional commissioners, the appellate authority in June 1999, rejecting Sumitra's plea for considering her to belong to group B.
