Karnataka HC Sets Aside Order Cancelling Appointment Of Zoology Professor For Lacking Locus Standi

“For the purpose of being aggrieved, the petitioner is required to demonstrate that in the event he had succeeded, he would be entitled to be appointed. 24. Where there are other eligible persons, attack to the selection of the respondent No.4 at the instance of the petitioner is impermissible, in the absence of arraying the others as parties”, a bench of Justice Sunil Dutt Yadav and Justice Umesh A. Adiga observed in the matter.

In the pertinent matter, the petitioner was one of the aspirants who had applied for the post of Associate Professor, Zoology, (backlog vacancy). He contended disentitlement of respondent No.4-Assistant Professor to claim representation under Scheduled Caste.

The petitioner contended that respondent No.4 could not have claimed the benefit, as he was a resident of the State of Andhra Pradesh and not Karnataka.

Consequently, in the writ petition, the single judge bench had set aside the order issued by the University appointing respondent No.4 to the post of Associate Professor, Zoology Department.

The Court after considering the relevant facts and circumstances, thus noted, “Firstly, this would be on the ground that Public Interest Litigation is impermissible in 'Service' 13 matters and secondly, on the ground that the petitioner being ineligible cannot be stated to be legally aggrieved so as to possess locus standi to challenge the selection of respondent No.4”.

Enumerating the procedure of obtaining a caste certificate, the bench further observed, “It is also necessary to note that the respondent No.4 possessed the Caste Certificate dated August 14 , 2011 at Annexure-'R2' issued by the competent authority, which shows that the respondent No.4 belongs to Scheduled Caste (Adi Dravida). The said Caste Certificate has not been cancelled”.

Accordingly, while setting aside the order dismissed the writ appeal.

Cause Title: Dr. M David v. Department of Higher Education