Karnataka High Court
Sri. Suresh M vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 November, 2022
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
WRIT PETITION NO.26293/2015 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI SURESH M
S/O MUNISWAMYGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
WORKING AS LECTURER IN KANNADA,
SRI MARUTHI PRE-UNIVERSITY COLLEGE,
MALUR, KOLAR DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI S. PRAKASH SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY
AND SECONDARY EDUCATION,
M S BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF PRE-UNIVERSITY EDUCATION
18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM,
BANGALORE-560 003.
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR
PRE-UNIVERSITY EDUCATION,
KOLAR DISTRICT
KOLAR-563 101.
4. THE SECRETARY
SRI MARUTHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY (R)
2
(NEAR WATER TANK)
NO.1878, SNAJEEVININAGARA,
SAHAKARANAGARA,
BANGALORE-560 092.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.V. RAMESH JOIS, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3;
SRI S.N. BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R-4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 AND 2
TO TAKE CORRECTIVE AND EFFECTIVE FURTHER NEEDFUL ACTION
PURSUANT TO THE COMMUNICATION LETTER DATED 17.10.2014
ISSUED BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND ANOTHER
COMMUNICATION LETTER DATED 25.11.2014 ISSUED BY THE R-2
VIDE ANNEXURE-K AGAINST THE R-4 FOR RELEASING THE PAY
SCALE/SALARY ATTACHED TO THE POST OF LECTURER IN OPTIONAL
KANNADA FOR THE PERIOD DURING WHICH THE PETITIONER
DISCHARGED THE DUTIES AND IN THE EVENT OF FAILURE OF THE
R-4 TO PAY THE PAY SCALE ATTACHED THE POST/SALARY PAYABLE
TO THE PETITIONER, DIRECT THE R-1 AND 2 TO DERECOGNIZE THE
R-4 INSTITUTION AND WITHHELD THE GRANT EXTENDED TO THE R-4
INSTITUTIONS AS HAS BEEN DONE VIDE ANNEXURE-M AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B'
GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petitioner claiming to be full-time lecturer in Kannada in 4th respondent-Sri Maruthi Education Society (for short "Institution") is before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying for the following reliefs:
Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 1st and 2nd respondents take corrective 3 and effective further needful action pursuant to the communication letter bearing No.ED 442 DGW 2014 dated 17.10.2014 issued by the first respondent vide Annexure-J and another communication letter bearing No.¥Á¥ÀƲ/¹§âA¢-3/JAJA-41/¸ÉÃ.¨sÀ/2014-15 dated 25.11.2014 issued by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-K against Respondent-4 for releasing the pay scale/salary attached to the post of lecturer in optional Kannada for the period during which the petitioner discharged the duties and in the event of failure of the respondent-4 to pay the pay scale attached the post/salary payable to the petitioner, direct respondent Nos.1 and 2 to derecognize the Respondent No.4/Institution and withheld the grant extended to respondent No.4/institution as has been done vide Annexure-M."
2. Heard learned counsel Sri.Prakash Shetty for petitioner and learned counsel Sri.S.N.Bhat for respondent No.4, Sri.M.V.Ramesh Jois, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed after inviting applications and interview by 4th respondent-Institution under Annexure-A 4 order dated 01.06.1997 as Kannada Lecturer. It is submitted that the selection of the petitioner was made by a Committee consisting of Deputy Director of Public Instructions, the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar District as members of the Committee. As the selection is by a Committee consisting of a representative from the Education Department, no further approval is necessary. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner is not paid salary attached to the post. The petitioner would be entitled for the same salary as is paid to the Government teachers. Learned counsel referring to the interim order dated 15.11.2017 passed by this Court in the above writ petition submits that the respondents ought to have complied the directions contained in letters dated 17.10.2014 and 25.11.2014 whereby the second respondent directed the 4th respondent-Institution to pay salary in accordance with the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Certain terms and conditions of services of employees in private unaided Primary and Secondary and Pre-University Educational Institutions) Rules, 2005 (for short "2005 Rules") 5 and to provide service security. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioner is not getting salary for the work discharged by the petitioner in the 4th respondent-Institution.
4. Learned AGA would submit that in pursuance of the order dated 15.11.2017, the Deputy Director of Pre-University Education issued show-cause notice seeking explanation as to why the academic recognition and salary grant provided to the Institution should not be de-recognized. Learned AGA would further submit that for a full-time lecturer to consider him/her as full-time lecturer, one should teach 16 hours per week and if it is less than 16 hours, it is to be considered as part-time. He also submits that the petitioner would be entitled for salary for the period he has worked whether it is permanent or part-time.
5. Learned counsel Sri.S.N.Bhat referring to statement of objections filed by 4th respondent would submit that the petitioner is not a regular permanent Lecturer in 4th respondent-Institution. It is submitted that the petitioner is 6 only temporary teacher who is assigned 7 hours of teaching of optional subject of Kannada per week. He also submits that the petitioner is paid salary for the work discharged by him as part-time teacher in the 4th respondent-Institution. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, I am of the view that the petitioner would not be entitled for the prayer sought in the writ petition, for the following reasons:
7. The petitioner has placed on record Annexure-A/order dated 01.06.1997 of the 4th respondent-Institution wherein the petitioner is appointed as Optional Kannada Lecturer against non-grant post. The petitioner has not placed on record any material or document to say that the petitioner's appointment was approved by the Department. The appointment shall be by a Committee consisting of representative from the Education Department and thereafter, prior approval of the Department would be necessary to 7 appoint the selected candidates in terms of the Karnataka Pre-University Education (Academic, Registration, Administration and Grant-in-Aid) Rules 2006 (for short "2006 Rules").
8. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a full-time Lecturer in optional Kannada subject in 4th respondent- Institution, but the petitioner has failed to establish that he is a full-time optional Kannada Lecturer. On the other hand, 4th respondent-Institution along with statement of objections has produced time-table at Annexure-R1 for the academic year 2014-15 wherein the learned counsel would point out that the petitioner is assigned only 7 hours of teaching optional Kannada subject per week. Learned counsel for the petitioner also invites attention to Annexures-S1, S2 and S3 produced along with rejoinder to say that the petitioner is discharging 12 hours of teaching per week. Even if it is considered as 12 hours teaching per week, the petitioner cannot be considered 8 as full-time staff in view of Rule 14 of 2006 Rules. Rule 14(1) reads as follows:
"Rule 14: Quantum of work for lecturers, principals and non-teaching staff: 1) Every lecturer teaching subjects shall have a minimum work load of atleast twenty four hours a week including practicals and in case of Mathematics twenty four hours a week. Every lecturer teaching Arts and Commerce subjects or languages or subjects not involving practicals shall have a minimum teaching work load of atleast sixteen hours per week. Every Principal shall have a minimum teaching work load in the following manner, namely,-
(a) If the Pre-University college were to have only Arts and Commerce combinations with not more than two sections in the first year and not more than two sections in the second year and if the work load in not more than ten hours in the subject taught by the principal, then the principal himself shall teach the subject.
(b) If the Pre-University college having only Arts and Commerce combinations with more than two sections in the first year and more than two sections in the second year and the teaching work load is more than ten hours, then the principal shall teach only ten 9 hours and the remaining work shall be entrusted to a lecturer having ten hours work load in another Government or aided Pre-University college located nearby. If such a lecturer is not available then a lecturer in that subject may be permitted to be appointed, but the principal shall teach at least five hours per week.
(c) If the Pre-University college were to be having science combination alone or in addition to other combinations and if the number of students in the science subject involving practical taught by the principal were to be limited to one practical class batch each in first and second year Pre-University classes, then the principal himself shall teach and conduct practical in that subject.
(d) If the Pre-University college were to have more than one practical batch in the first and second year Pre-University classes, then the principal shall teach atleast five hours in that subject and the remaining work shall be entrusted a lecturer having work load upto twelve hours only in another Government or aided Pre-University college located nearby. If such a lecturer is not available, then a lecturer in that subject may be permitted to be appointed, but the principal shall atleast five hours in that subject.10
(e) There shall not be less than 100 students together in I year and II year PUC Classes for the post of physical education teacher.
A reading of the above rule makes it clear that every lecturer teaching Arts and Commerce subject or languages or subjects not involving practicals shall have minimum teaching work load of 16 hours per week. When the above rule requires minimum of 16 hours per week, the petitioner who claims that he is teaching 12 hours per week cannot be considered as full-time teaching staff of 4th respondent-Institution. The petitioner has failed to establish that he is a full-time teacher teaching 16 hours per week. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to pay scale or salary attached to the post of Lecturer in Kannada. If the petitioner is a part-time Lecturer, teaching only 7 hours of optional subject of Kannada per week, he would be entitled for the salary or remuneration for the work carried on by him in the 4th respondent-Institution.
8. It is open for the petitioner to make a representation to claim salary for the work carried on in the 4th respondent- 11 Institution and the 4th respondent-Institution shall consider the said representation and pass appropriate orders and if the salary is not already paid, 4th respondent shall pay salary.
9. With the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE mpk/-* CT:SM