Karnataka High Court
Mrs Violet Mascarenhas W/O Mr William ... vs Nitk English Medium School Trust (Regd) on 22 June, 2012
Author: H N Nagamohan Das
Bench: H.N. Nagamohan Das
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.N. NAGAMOHAN DAS
W.P.No.6122/2012 (S-DE) C/W
W.P.No.43001/2011(S-RES)
WP No 6122 OF 2012
BETWEEN
------------
MRS VIOLET MASCARENHAS
W/O MR WILLIAM MASCARENHAS
AGED 55 YEARS
HEADMISTRESS/PRINCIPAL NITK ENGLISH
MEDIUM HIGH SCHOOL SRINIVASANAGAR,
SURATHKAL 575 025, DK DISTRICT &
R/AT BONITO MANOR, SURATHKAL-BAJPE
ROAD, SURATHKAL 575014, DK DISTRICT
... PETITIONER
(By Sri : NARAYAN BHAT, ADV. FOR
M/S SUBBARAO & CO., ADVS.)
AND :
------
1 NITK ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOL
TRUST (REGD)
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
NITK CAMPUS, SRINIVASANAGAR,
2
SURATHKAL 575 025
DAKSHINA KANNADA DIST
2 THE PRESIDENT
NITK ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOL TRUST
NITK CAMPUS
SRINIVASANAGAR,SURATHKAL 575 025
DAKSHINA KANNADA DIST
3 THE CORRESPONDENT
NITK ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOL TRUST
NITK CAMPUS
SRINIVASANAGAR,SURATHKAL 575 025
DAKSHINA KANNADA DIST
4 DR SANDEEP SANCHETI
DIRECTOR , I/C, NITK AND PRESIDENT,
NITK SCHOOL TRUST
SURATHKAL 585 025
5 DR M GOVINDARAJ
REGISTRAR OF NITK AND CORRESPONDENT
OF NITK ENGLISH MEDIUM SHCOOL
TRUST, NITK CAMPUS,
SRINVASANAGAR,
SURATHKAL 575 025
DAKSHINA KANNADA DIST
6 PROF.A.O. SURENDRANATHAN
SECRETARY,
NITK ENGLISH MEDIUM
HIGH SCHOOL TRUST,NITK CAMPUS,
SRINIVASANAGAR,
3
SURATHKAL 575 025
DAKSHINA KANNADA DIST
7 SRI SURAPAIAH KARNIK
FATHER S NAME NOT KNWON TO THE
PETITIONER, R/AT DOOR NO.12-53/7,
SUMUKHA, THADAMBAIL
NEAR SURATHKAL TELEPHONE
EXCHANGE, SURATKAL 575 025
8 SRI SUNIL KUMAR
PRINCIPAL
NITK ENGLISH MEDIUM HIGH SCHOOL
SRINIVASANAGAR
SURATHKAL 575 025
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT
9 THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF
TECHNOLOGY , KARNATAKA,
SRINIVASANAGAR,
SURATHKAL 575025
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT
REP BY ITS REGISTRAR
... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri : NATARAJ BALLAL, ADV., FOR R1-9 )
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED U/A 226 & 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE
ORDER DTD.14.10.11 VIDE ANNEX-W, AS THE SAME IS
VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 14, 16 AND 21 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
4
WP No 43001 OF 2011
BETWEEN
-------------
MRS. VIOLET MASCARENHAS
W/O MR. WILLIAM MASCARENHAS,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
HEADMISTRES/PRINCIPAL NITK
ENGLISH MEDIUM HIGH SCHOOL
SRINIVASANAGAR, SURATHKAL,
D.K DIST & R/AT "BONITO MANOR"
SURATHKAL-BAJPE ROAD,
SURATHKAL, D.K DISTRICT 575025
... PETITIONER
(By Sri : NARAYANA RAO, ADV. FOR
M/S SUBBARAO & CO., ADVS.)
AND :
------
1 NITK ENGLISH MEDIUM HIGH SCHOOL
TRUST (REGD.) REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY NITK CAMPUS
SRINIVASANAGAR
SUATHKAL,DAKSHINA KANNADA
DIST 575025
2 THE PRESIDENT
NITK ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOL TRUST
NITK CAMPUS, SRINIVASANAGAR,
SURATHKAL
DAKSHINA KANNADA DIST 575025
5
3 THE CORRESPONDENT
NITK ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOL TRUST
NITK CAMPUS, SRINIVASANAGAR,
SURATHKAL
DAKSHINA KANNADA DIST 575025
4 DR. SANDEEP SANCHETI
DIRECTOR,
NITK SURATHKAL 585025
5 NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF
TECHNOLOGY KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
NITK CAMPUS
SURATHKAL,
DAKSHINA KANNADA
6 SRI SUNIL KUMAR
PRINCIPAL,
NITK ENGLISH MEDIUM
SCHOOL, NITK CAMPUS,
SRINIVASANAGAR
SURATHKAL-575 025
DAKSHINA KANNADA DIST.
... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri : NATARAJA BALLAL,ADV., FOR C/R1 & R2-R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED U/A 226 & 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE
COMMUNICATION DT 9.7.11 VIDE ANNX-T & ORDER DT
14.9.11 VIDE ANNX-Z AS THE SAME ARE VIOLATIVE OF
ART 14,16 & 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION.
6
These petitions coming on for preliminary hearing 'B'
group, this day, the court made the following;
ORDER
In W.P.No.43001/2011 petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
a) to quash the resolution dated 9.7.2011, Annexure-
CC, communication dated 9.7.2011, Annexure-T and order dated 14.9.2011 in EAT No.2/2011, Annexure-Z
b) for a writ of mandamus directing respondents to reinstate the petitioner as Head mistress/Principal.
2. In W.P.No.6122/2012 petitioner has prayed for writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 14.10.2011, Annexure-W and for a writ of mandamus directing respondents to extend the consequential benefits. 7
3. Petitioner and respondents in both the writ petitions are common. Petitioner joined the service in the respondent school of 1.6.1986 as Teacher. Subsequently, on 25.05.2001 petitioner was promoted as Headmistress. The services of petitioner came to be confirmed as Headmistress with effect from 19.7.2002. Subsequently, the management of the respondent was affiliated to the CBSE syllabus. Consequently, the petitioner was redesignated as Principal of the school. When the matter stood at that stage, the respondents passed a resolution on 9.7.2011 as per Annexure- CC to initiate disciplinary enquiry proceedings against the petitioner and to relieve the petitioner as Principal of the school. Accordingly on 9.7.2011 petitioner was relieved as Principal. Aggrieved by this relieving order petitioner approached the Education Appellate Tribunal in EAT No.2/2011 under Section 94 of the Karnataka Education Act. 8 Under the impugned order dated 14.9.2011, Annexure-Z, the educational tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground that Karnataka Education Act is not applicable to the respondent school since the same excluded from the application of the Act. Aggrieved by the communication dated 9.7.2011, Annexure-T relieving the petitioner as Principal and the order of EAT as per Annexure-Z dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner she is before this court in W.P.No.43001/2011.
4. In terms of the resolution dated 9.7.2011 passed by the respondents they issued articles of charges to the petitioner on 14.10.2011 as per Annexure-W. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner is before this court in W.P.No.6122/2012.
5. Heard arguments on both the side and perused the entire writ papers.
9
6. Sri Narayan Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the articles of charges are vague, motivated, unfounded and it is only a counterblast to the several constructive measures taken by the petitioner in the respondent school and on this ground the same is liable to be quashed. I decline to accept this contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. Whether the allegations made against the petitioner as per articles of charges are true or false cannot be decided by this court under Article 226. It is outside the scope of Article 226 to hold a mini trial or a summary enquiry to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the articles of charges. Keeping open all contentions urged by the petitioner in these writ petitions, I decline to interfere with the articles of charges issued by the respondents.
10
7. It is not in dispute that Karnataka Education Act is not applicable to the schools affiliated to CBSE syllabus. In this connection batch of writ appeals are pending before this court. Be that as it may, as of now, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner as not maintainable. I find no justifiable ground to interfere with the same.
8. The other prayer of the petitioner is to quash the resolution dated 9.7.2011 relieving the petitioner as Headmistress/Principal of the respondent school. Admittedly, the investigation against the petitioner is completed, articles of charges are issued, statement of imputation is furnished, list of witness and documents are given to the petitioner, enquiry officer is appointed and the petitioner has entered appearance in the enquiry proceedings. In the circumstances, there is no reason or 11 justification to relieve the petitioner from the post of Headmistress/Principal. It is not shown to me as to how the continuance of petitioner as Headmistress/Principal will have a bearing on the completion of the enquiry proceedings. In the circumstances, the respondents are liable to reinstate the petitioner as Headmistress/Principal.
9. Sri Nataraj Ballal, learned counsel for the respondents submits that during the pendency of these writ petitions they have notified inviting applications from eligible candidates for the post of Headmistress/Principal in the respondent school by prescribing higher qualification and appointed respondent no.8 as Principal. This measure of the respondent even if it is true, the same cannot prevent the petitioner from continuing as Headmistress/Principal unless she is duly removed from that post in accordance with law. Any steps taken by the respondent institution during the 12 pendency of these writ petitions will not affect the right of the petitioner. For the reasons stated above, the following:
ORDER
i) Writ petitions are hereby disposed of.
ii) Respondents shall reinstate the petitioner as Headmistress/Principal of the respondent school.
iii) Respondents shall complete the enquiry in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible.
Sd/-
JUDGE.
DKB