'Fence-sitter can’t be helped'

S Shyam Prasad | NT

Bengaluru: A candidate for the post of Headmaster who did not pursue legal remedies till another person tried and succeeded, approached the High Court seeking parity.

The High Court however said that such ‘fence sitters’ who try to emulate another litigant cannot be rewarded.

“In our instant case, in our considered opinion, the petitioner is a ‘fence sitter’ and we do not find any ground which would demonstrate the findings of the Tribunal are erroneous or illegal. In that view of the matter, the petition stands dismissed,” the HC said dismissing the petition.

Renuka, a resident of Bidar, approached the High Court with a petition challenging the December 21, 2022 order of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT) which had rejected her application.

Her petition was heard by the Division Bench of Justice G Narendar and Justice CM Poonacha. Renuka was an applicant for the post of Head Master in 2018. Her candidature was however not considered.

She contended that a similarly placed applicant approached the KSAT where his application was rejected. But he had then approached the High Court which had directed the constitution of a Special Expert Committee to gain opinion regarding his equivalence of the subjects.

Subsequently, he was appointed as a headmaster. Similarly, another petitioner had benefited from the HC order and was appointed as a headmaster. Renuka had approached the KSAT citing the High Court orders in the cases of the other two persons.

The KSAT had however rejected her application citing delay and laches. In this backdrop she had approached the HC.

The Division Bench of the High Court however noted that Renuka had waited for others leading to delay.

“The facts narrated above clearly disclose that the petitioner was watching from the sidelines and appears to be motivated by the success of a candidate who was similarly placed and who secured employment pursuant to the directions issued by the Co-ordinate Bench. It is this class of litigants that the Hon’ble Apex Court has categorized as ‘fence sitters’ and has disapproved of the approach of the litigants trying to emulate a litigant, who approached the Court at the earliest point of time and whose efforts were rewarded,” the HC said.

Dismissing Renuka’s petition, the HC clarified with regard to equivalence and said that “It is needless to say that it is always open for the petitioner to take advantage of the opinion of the Expert Committee in the matter she chooses to do so.” (WP 10402/2023)