Bengaluru: Mere continuance in service after the expiry of the probationary period, in the absence of an order of confirmation or any other material establishing such confirmation, would not by itself confer upon a person a vested right to the post.
She was appointed to the post on Jan 1, 2018, on probation for a period of two years. The post had fallen vacant on account of the retirement of V Mariswami on May 11, 2015, and State govt had subsequently permitted the Society running the college to fill up the said vacant post. On July 20, 2024, the authorities permitted the change of reservation to the General Merit category as it was a single post. On April 2, 2026, a single bench had dismissed Naveen’s petition, forcing her to appeal before a division bench. However, she secured 57 marks and stood at Sl No 14, whereas only the first five candidates were within the zone of consideration.
State govt and the College management opposed the same, contending that her services were not confirmed yet and thus, she had no vested right to make such a claim.
She further contended that she had already been appointed against the sanctioned vacant post and, being an SC category person, was entitled to continue against the said post. The Karnataka High Court has made this observation in a recent judgement while dismissing the writ appeal filed by one TM Naveen, working as an Assistant Professor in Geography at PLN First Grade College, Purigali, Malavalli Taluk, Mandya District. However, Naveen, who belongs to the SC category, challenged the same. She argued that the post was required to be filled by following the reservation roster applicable to the SC category. As regards the change of reservation, the authorities submitted that, as per the rules, when recruitment is in respect of a single post, the same cannot be reserved for any particular category. After perusing the materials on record, the division bench opined that it couldn’t find any infirmity in the decision of the authorities to proceed with the selection process pursuant to the impugned recruitment notification. Significantly, during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner herself was permitted to participate in the selection process. The selection was thereafter conducted by a duly constituted committee, and the petitioner (Naveen) participated in the process. Thus, even with the subsequent events, the petitioner has not demonstrated that she would have secured the post or that any prejudice has been caused to her by the continuation of the selection process, the bench added.
The contention that the petitioner was working against the vacant post and was, therefore, entitled to question the subsequent change in the reservation roster also cannot be accepted. Because she had been permitted to work there, the bench further noted, in the absence of confirmation of her appointment, the petitioner cannot claim an indefeasible right to continue against the post merely. You Can Also Check: Gold Rate in Bengaluru | Silver Rate in Bengaluru | Bank Holidays in Bengaluru | Public Holidays in Bengaluru | Bengaluru AQI | Weather in Bengaluru | Petrol Price in Bengaluru | Diesel Price in Bengaluru | CNG Price in Bengaluru | LPG Price in Bengaluru Stay updated with the latest Bengaluru news.
As regards Naveen’s claim that her salary has not been paid, the division bench observed that she can submit a fresh representation and the Society and the college are required to consider the same. Download the TOI App.