Karnataka High Court
Smt. Gayathri Naik vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 July, 2023
Author: G.Narendar
Bench: G.Narendar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:23945-DB
WP No. 14433 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT PETITION NO. 14433 OF 2023 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. GAYATHRI NAIK
W/O. SRI. POLUR MURALIDHARA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/AT AVARAGUPPA,
SIDDAPURA TALUK,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT,
PRESENTLY WORKING AT
D.K.Z.P. HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL,
MANCHI KUKKAJE,
BANTWALA TALUK-574 211,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SRIKANTH M P., ADVOCATE)
Digitally
AND:
signed by
BHARATHI S
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Location:
HIGH COURT BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
OF SCHOOL EDUCATION AND
KARNATAKA
LITERACY DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
M.S. BUILDING,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER
SCHOOL EDUCATION AND
LITERACY DEPARTMENT,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:23945-DB
WP No. 14433 of 2023
3. THE DIRECTOR
PRIMARY EDUCATION,
SCHOOL EDUCATION AND
LITERACY DEPARTMENT,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
SCHOOL EDUCATION AND
LITERACY DEPARTMENT,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-575 006.
5. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER
SCHOOL EDUCATION AND
LITERACY DEPARTMENT,
BANTWALA TALUK-574 211,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.
6. SMT. KAVITHA. K
W/O. VASANTH. D,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
OCC ASSISTANT TEACHER ARTS (ENGLISH),
GOVERNMENT ADARSHA VIDYALAYA (RMSA),
GUNDLUPETE, CHAMARAJNAGAR,
R/AT DEVASYA HOUSE,
GUNDLUPETE TALUK,
GUNDLUPETE,
DISTRICT CHAMARAJANAGAR-571 111.
7. THE JOINT DIRECTOR
PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS IN THE
OFFICE OF DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
MYSORE-570 004.
8. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
IN THE OFFICE OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
CHAMARAJANAGAR-571 313.
9. SRI. CHETHAN. V. NAYAK
OCC ASSISTANT TEACHER,
GRADE-2, ARTS (ENGLISH),
GOVERNMENT ADARSHA VIDYALAYA,
HUNSUR TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT-571 105.
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:23945-DB
WP No. 14433 of 2023
10. SMT. SHILPASHREE
OCC ASSISTANT TEACHER,
GRADE-2,
ARTS (ENGLISH),
GOVERNMENT ADARSHA VIDYALAYA,
MYSORE SOUTH
MYSORE-570 008.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT SHILPA S GOGI, AGA FOR R1, R2, R3, R4, R5,R7 AND R8)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 10.01.2022 PASSED IN APPLICATION No. 5957/2021
BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
G. NARENDAR J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the respondents.
2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed on the application preferred by Respondent No.6 herein. It is fairly submitted that the Petitioner was not arrayed as a party in the said application before the Tribunal. It is contended that the observation of the Tribunal are adverse to the interest of the petitioner. Hence, claim of the Petitioner is justified.
3. In this regard the issue that arises for consideration is no more res integra. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajeev Kumar and Another Vs. Hemraj Singh Chauhan & -4- NC: 2023:KHC:23945-DB WP No. 14433 of 2023 Ors.1 has been pleased to observe and hold in para Nos.7 to 13 as under:
"7. However, while answering the objection on their locus standi, the appellants referred to the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and others - [(1997) 3 SCC 261] and in particular to paragraph 99, page 311 at placita f & g of the Report and contended that in view of the law declared in Chandra Kumar, they can come before the High Court and raise their grievances against the judgment of CAT as their interests have been affected by that judgment even though they were not parties to the proceedings in which the said judgment was rendered.
8. This Court is of the view that the understanding of the ratio in L.Chandra Kumar (supra) by the learned counsel for the appellants in this case is not correct and the ratio in Chandra Kumar (supra) is just to the contrary.
9. The Constitution Bench in Chandra Kumar (supra) held that the power of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution is a part of the basic structure of our Constitution (See paragraphs 78 & 79, pages 301 and 302 of the report). The Constitution Bench also held that various Tribunals created under Articles 323-A and 323-B of the Constitution, will function as Court of first instance and are subject to the power of judicial review of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The Constitution Bench also held that these Tribunals are empowered even to deal with constitutional questions and can also examine the vires of statutory legislation, except the vires of the legislation which creates the particular Tribunal.
10. In para 93, at p. 309 of the Report, the Constitution Bench specifically held: (L.Chandra Kumar Case) 1 2010(4) SCC 554 -5- NC: 2023:KHC:23945-DB WP No. 14433 of 2023 "93....We may add that the Tribunals will, however, continue to act as the only courts of first instance in respect of the areas of law for which they have been constituted...."
(Emphasis added)
12. The Constitution Bench explained the said statement of law by reiterating in the next sentence: (L.Chandra Kumar Case (supra), SCC p. 309, para 93) "93....By this, we mean that it will not be open for litigants to directly approach the High Courts even in cases where they question the vires of statutory legislations (except, as mentioned, where the legislation which creates the particular Tribunal is challenged) by overlooking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal concerned.
11. On a proper reading of these two sentences, it is clear:
(a) The Tribunals will function as the only Court of first instance in respect of the areas of law for which they have been constituted.
(b) Even where any challenge is made to the vires of legislation, excepting the legislation under which Tribunal has been set up, in such cases also, litigants will not be able to directly approach the High Court `overlooking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal'.
12. The aforesaid propositions have been repeated again by the Constitution Bench (in L. Chandra Kumar case) in the penultimate paragraph 99 at page 311 of the report in the following words:
"99...The Tribunals will, nevertheless, continue to act like courts of first instance in respect of the areas of law for which they have been constituted. It will not, therefore, be open for litigants to directly approach the High Courts even in cases where they question the vires of statutory legislations (except where the legislation which creates the particular Tribunal is challenged) by overlooking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal concerned...."-6-
NC: 2023:KHC:23945-DB WP No. 14433 of 2023
13. In view of such repeated and authoritative pronouncement by the Constitution Bench of this Court, the approach made to the High Court for the first time by these appellants in respect of their service disputes over which CAT has jurisdiction, is not legally sustainable. The Division Bench of the High Court, with great respect, fell into an error by allowing the appellants to treat the High Court as a Court of first instance in respect of their service disputes, for adjudication of which C.A.T. has been constituted. "
4. In view of the above, Writ Petition is disposed of with liberty to the Petitioner to seek remedy in the manner set out by the Hon'ble Apex Court supra.
5. In view of the disposal of petition, pending I.As. do not survive for consideration. Costs made easy.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE BS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13