Karnataka High Court
Sri Raveesh C vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 June, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:20120
WP No. 6624 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.6624 OF 2019 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI RAVEESH C.
S/O CHIKKANNA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER
DR. AMBEDKAR HIGH SCHOOL
HEGGUNDA, NELAMANGALA TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M. P. SRIKANTH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
PRIMARY & SECONDARY EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING
Digitally signed by
CHAYA S A
BENGALURU - 560 001.
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR
PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
NEW PUBLIC OFFICES
NRUPATHUGNA ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
SECONDARY EDUCATION
NEW PUBLIC OFFICES
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:20120
WP No. 6624 of 2019
4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
K G ROAD
BENGALURU.
5. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER
NELAMANGALA TALUK
NELAMANGALA.
6. HEGGUNDA DR.AMBEDKAR EDUCATION SOCIETY(R)
221/F-1, I MAIN ROAD
7TH CROSS, 3RD PHASE
MANJUNATHA NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 010.
7. THE HEAD MASTER
DR AMBEDKAR HIGH SCHOOL
HEGGUNDA
NELAMANGALA TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
8. CHETHANA H
CLAIMING TO BE WORKING AS
ASSISTANT TEACHER IN ENGLISH
DR. AMBEDKAR HIGH SCHOOL
HEGGUNDA
NELAMANGALA TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.S.NAGARAJA, AGA FOR R1-R5;
SRI CHANDRAKANTH R. GOULAY, ADVOCATE FOR R6 AND R7;
SRI J.N.NAVEEN, ADVOCATE FOR R8)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE CONDITION NO.7 INSOFAR AS THE ORDER DATED
25.02.2014 AND CONDITION NO.3 INSOFAR AS ORDER DATED
01.04.2015 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT 1 VIDE
ANNEXURES-L AND M WITH REGARD TO THE DIRECTION
BEING ISSUED TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT'S APPOINTMENT THE
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:20120
WP No. 6624 of 2019
PERSON TO THE POST OF ASSISTANT MASTER IN ENGLISH
AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing condition No.7 in Government order dated 25.02.20214 and Condition No.3 dated 1.04.2015 (Annexures-L and M) passed by the respondent No.1, interalia seeking direction to the respondent No.6 to appointment the petitioner to the post of Assistant Master in English. The petitioner has also challenged order dated 02.03.2019, passed by the respondent-authorities approving the appointment of the respondent No.8, dated 02.03.2019 (Annexure-S) and as such, sought for direction to the respondent No.1 to consider the proposal made by the respondent-Management (Annexure-P) and further consideration of the case of the petitioner in terms of the circular dated 19.05.2018 (Annexure-K).
2. Relevant facts for the adjudication of the case are that, the petitioner was appointed as Teacher in the -4- NC: 2023:KHC:20120 WP No. 6624 of 2019 respondent No.7-Institution as per appointment order dated 29.05.2005. The case of the petitioner that, the appointment of the petitioner was approved by the respondent No.4 without grant-in-aid (Annexure-F). It is further stated in the writ petition that, as the respondent- State has issued the circular, dated 04.12.2010, (Annexure-H), whereby, the permission was accorded to the Institution to appoint the Arts Teacher in the event, there is dearth of English Language Teacher, in the High Schools, it is stated that respondent No.7-Institution was admitted to grant-in-aid as per order dated 25.02.2014 and the grievance of the petitioner that, instead of considering the case of the petitioner for appointment to the English teacher in the respondent No.7, the respondent No.8 has been appointed and approved on 02.03.2019 (Annexure-S). Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has presented this writ petition.
3. I have heard Sri. M.P.Srikanth, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Sri. M.S.Nagaraja, learned -5- NC: 2023:KHC:20120 WP No. 6624 of 2019 Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State; Sri. Chandrakanth R. Goulay, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 6 and 7 and Sri. J.N. Naveen, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.8.
4. Sri M.P. Srikanth, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has been appointed during 2005. In the meanwhile, the petitioner has secured requisite qualification of post graduate diploma in English from Regional Institute of English in terms of the circular and order passed by the respondent- Government. Sri M.P.Srikanth, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited the attention of the court to that, the petitioner's appointment was without aid as passed by the respondent-authorities as per Annexure-F, despite the same, respondent-authorities have approved the appointment of 8th respondent which requires to be interfered in this writ petition, as the condition stipulated at Condition NO.3 in G.O. dated 25.02.2014 in respect of -6- NC: 2023:KHC:20120 WP No. 6624 of 2019 the respondent-Institution is liable to be quashed and therefore, he sought for interference of this Court.
5. Per contra, Sri Chandrakanth R.Goulay, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Institution argued that, in terms of the roaster adopted by the Government as per G.O. dated 01.04.2015, the post for Teacher (English) in the Institution was reserved and in terms of the same, respondent No.8 having possessed requisite qualification, to be appointed as English Teacher in the respondent-Institution and accordingly, he sought for confirmation of the appointment of the respondent No.8. Sri Chandruankan R. Goulay further argued that the petitioner has been relieved from service during 2018.
6. Sri M.S. Nagaraja, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State submitted that, respondent-Institution while appointing respondent No.8 has followed that roaster in terms of the order dated 05.02.2014, (Annexure-J) and therefore, contended that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. -7-
NC: 2023:KHC:20120 WP No. 6624 of 2019
7. Sri J.N. Naveen, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.8 sought to justify the appointment of the respondent No.8. In reply to the same, Sri M.P. Srikanth, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner disputed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Institution with regard to reliving the petitioner from the service.
8. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the respondent- Institution has recommended the name of the petitioner for approval with the respondent-authorities as the appointment was made permanently for unaided post of Institution. In this regard, the approval made on 20.01.2011 (Annexure-F). Perusal of the Annexure-F would indicate that, the post of the petitioner was approved for English language. The respondent-Institution was admitted to grant-in-aid on 25.02.2014, (Annexure- L). Perusal of the condition No.3 and 7 in the Government Order dated 25.02.2014 (Annexure-L) would indicate that, -8- NC: 2023:KHC:20120 WP No. 6624 of 2019 the case of the petitioner was not considered as the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification though his appointment was approved insofar as unaided post is concerned, as per Annexure-F. However, in respect of the admitting the respondent-Institution in granting aid, the respondent-Institution has adopted the Government Order dated 01.04.2015 as the post of the English teacher was reserved. Accordingly, though the petitioner was working in the respondent No.7-Institution during the year 2015, however, the management of the Institution has not forwarded the case of the petitioner for grant-in-aid. It is settled principle in law that the governing council of the respondent-management is the competent authority to appoint the Teachers and same has to be approved by the respondent-authorities. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that the respondents herein have appointed the respondent No.8 herein being qualified to the post of Assistant Teacher, (English), which is reserved as per the roaster of the respondent-Government. In that view of the matter, the petitioner has not made out a case for -9- NC: 2023:KHC:20120 WP No. 6624 of 2019 interference in this writ petition. That apart, the writ petition is filed in the year 2019. However, while admitting the respondent-Institution under grant-in-aid and even while passing the order dated 01.04.2015, by the respondent-authorities, the post of English Teacher was reserved and therefore, the said order of 2015 was not challenged by the petitioner at the belated stage after four years and on this ground alone, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE SB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59