Karnataka High Court
Sri. Samson S/O Anandappa And Another vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 21 September, 2017
Author: S.Sujatha
Bench: S.Sujatha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA
W.P.Nos.203659-203660/2015 (S-RES)
Between:
1. Sri Samson
S/o Anandappa
Aged about 53 years
Working as Physical Education Teacher
Methodist Co-Education
Higher Primary School
Raichur - 584 101
2. Rajkumar S/o Devdas
Aged about 44 years
Working as Assistant Teacher
Methodist Co-Education
Higher Primary School
Raichur - 584 101
... Petitioners
(By Sri G.G. Chagashetti & Sri I.R. Biradar, Advs.)
And:
1. State of Karnataka
Represented by its Secretary
Department of Primary and
Secondary Education
M.S. Buildings, Bangalore-01
2
2. The Regional Commissioner of
Public Instructions
Kalaburagi - 585 102
3. The Joint Director of
Public Instructions
Kalaburagi Division
Kalaburagi - 585 102
4. The Deputy Director of
Public Instructions
Raichur District
Raichur - 584 101
5. The Block Education Officer
Raichur District
Raichur - 584 101
6. The Vice President
Methodist Co-education
Higher Primary School
Raichur - 584 101
... Respondents
(Sri A. Syed Habeeb, AGA for R1 to R5;
R6 - served)
These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of certiorari and to
quash the impugned order dated 19.02.2015 passed by the 4th
respondent in No.¯É«4/SÁ¥Áæ±Á²/£ÉÃ.C£ÀÄ.03/2005-06 produced at
Annexure-J and to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
writ of mandamus directing respondents No.1 to 5 to approve the
appointment of the petitioners with aid, with all other
consequential benefits.
3
These petitions coming on for preliminary hearing in 'B'
group this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER
The petitioners have challenged the order dated 19.02.2015 passed by the 4th respondent at Annexure-J to the writ petitions, interalia seeking for a direction to the respondents 1 to 5 to approve the appointment of the petitioners with aid, with all other consequential benefits.
2. The petitioners are working as Physical Education Teacher and Assistant Teacher respectively in the 6th respondent - institution and claims to have put in more than 13 years unblemished continuous service. It is the grievance of the petitioners that the respondents are not approving their appointment with aid. The 6th respondent - institution is a minority aided institution. In the earlier round of litigation, the petitioners approached this Court challenging the orders passed by the authorities rejecting the proposal of the petitioners for grant in aid. This Court, in Writ Petition 4 Nos.83501-83502/2009 (D.D. 16.01.2014) disposed of the matter observing that it is for the State Government to consider the prayer of the petitioners keeping in mind the latest Rules, Guidelines, Notifications issued by the State Government providing liberty to the petitioners to file one more representation along with all necessary notifications/orders of this Court in similar matters for consideration of the State Government within four weeks from the date of the order. Pursuant to the same, the petitioners submitted the representation before the respondent No.1. The same has been rejected by an order of the respondent No.4 -Deputy Director dated 19.02.2015. Hence, these writ petitions.
3. Learned counsel Sri G.G. Chagashettiy appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are working with the 6th respondent-school since more than 13 years continuously as Physical Education Teacher and Assistant Teacher respectively. The 6th respondent is a minority aided 5 institution. As such, the order of the Government dated 01.06.1999 prohibiting to fill the vacant seats in the aided primary schools is not applicable to the present case. This issue was considered by this Court in the earlier round of litigation and placing reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.176/2007 (D.D. 27.02.2008), a direction was issued to the State Government to consider the case of the petitioners in the light of the said judgment. However, the respondent No.4 without considering the said Division Bench judgment of this Court and its effect, proceeded to pass the impugned order. It is also contended that the respondent No.4 grossly erred in applying the prohibition order passed by the Government for filling up the vacant posts, which is not applicable to the case on hand. Thus, the learned counsel submits that the order impugned herein is not in conformity with the directions issued by this Court in W.P. Nos.83501-502/2009. It is submitted that the petitioners were appointed subsequent to the order passed by the respondent No.4. This aspect was not 6 properly appreciated by the respondent No.4. It is further contended that no opportunity was provided to the petitioners prior to passing of the order impugned herein.
4. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 5, justifying the impugned order submitted that the permission was accorded to the 6th respondent to fill up the vacant posts subject to certain conditions. As per the said conditions, the 6th respondent has to strictly adhere to the Rules and the orders passed by the Government from time to time. Despite the order passed by the Government prohibiting the aided primary schools to fill up the vacant posts, the 6th respondent proceeded to appoint the petitioners herein contrary to the Government order though the permission was granted subject to certain conditions. It was submitted that the 6th respondent has not followed the required procedure for appointing the petitioners. Thus, it was contended that the appointments are made contrary to the Rules. It was further 7 contended that the Respondent No.4 has passed the order strictly in compliance with the order passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.83501-83502/2009 and the same requires to be confirmed by this Court.
5. Adverting to the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is evident that the petitioners approached this Court in W.P.Nos.83501- 83502/2009 aggrieved by the order of the authorities rejecting their request for grant-in-aid.
6. In the said writ petitions, this Court has categorically observed thus:
"Be that as it may, it is for the State Government to consider the prayer of the petitioners once again keeping in mind the latest Rules, Guidelines, Notifications issued by the State Government. The State Government shall verify as to whether the appointments of the similarly placed teachers are approved or not by the State Government. The State Government shall also consider the effect of the judgment of this Court passed in W.A.No.176/2007, 8 disposed of on 27.2.2008 (The State of Karnataka Vs. Smt.Sulochana, W/o.Job).
It is open for the petitioners herein to file one more representation along with all the necessary notifications/orders of this Court in similar matters for consideration of the State Government within four weeks from today. If such representation is made, the same shall be considered by the State Government as early as possible."
7. In compliance with the order of this Court, the petitioners have filed their representation. It is pertinent to note that the directions were issued to the Respondent No.1 - State Government to consider the representation in the light of the observations made therein. However, Respondent No.4 has passed the impugned order rejecting the representations mainly on the ground that the order of the Government dated 01.06.1999 prohibits appointment to the vacant posts by the aided primary schools. It is in this context reference has to be made to the order passed by the very same Respondent No.4 on 12.01.2001 permitting the 6th Respondent to fill up the 9 vacant posts for Kannada Assistant Teacher and the Physical Education Teacher. As such, the Respondent No.2 cannot raise an objection to the said posts filled up by the 6th Respondent.
8. The crucial question that was required to be addressed by the Respondent No.4 was whether the said prohibitory order of the State Government is applicable to the minority aided institution in the light of the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Writ Appeal No.176/2007 (D.D.27.01.2008). This exercise has not been done by the Respondent No.4. It is only on the technical aspects that, the interview date was not made known to the authorities and so on, the representation made by the petitioners is rejected. Thus, it is clear that the order impugned is not in confirmity with the directions issued by this Court in W.P.Nos.83501- 83502/2009.
9. Accordingly, the order impugned herein is quashed. The matter is remanded to the Respondent No.1 to 10 re-consider the same in accordance with law, after due notice to the petitioners, more particularly, in the light of the directions issued by this Court in W.P.Nos.83501- 83502/2009 and pass appropriate orders with all fairness, keeping in mind the service of the petitioners in the 6th Respondent-School for more than 13 years.
Sd/-
JUDGE LG/RR