Karnataka High Court
Sri Gulab Jan Sab vs State Of Karnataka on 10 March, 2014
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
Bench: A.N. Venugopala Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NOS.11840-11873/2014 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI GULAB JAN SAB
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
S/O VALLI KHAN SAB
ASSISTANT TEACHER
GLPS, CHIKKANAHALLI
SOLUR CRC, MAGADI TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562127.
2. SRI GANESH S D
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
S/O DASEGOWDA
ASSISTANT TEACHER
GLPS, MALLIGUNTE
MAADEGOWDANAHALLI CRC, MAGADI TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT -562127.
3. SRI MAHADEVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
S/O REVANASIDDAIAH
ASSISTANT TEACHER
GHPS, KORAMANGALA
SOLUR CRC, MAGADI TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562127.
4. SMT. SHARADADEVI H
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
W/O. HUCCHAGANGAIAH
ASSISTANT TEACHER, GLPS,
DASEGOWDANAPALYA
GUDEMARANAHALLI CRC, MAGADI TALUK
2
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562127.
5. SMT. GANGAMMA M
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
W/O BASAVARAJU G R
ASSISTANT TEACHER, GLPS, KAKKEPALYA
BANAWADI CRC, MAGADI TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562127.
6. SRI VENKATESH G
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
S/O GOVINDAIAH, ASSISTANT TEACHER
GHPS, MARIKUPPE
GUDEMARANAHALLI CRC, MAGADI TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562127.
7. SRI CHANDRASHEKARAIH G
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
S/O GANGAREVAIAH, P E TEACHER
GHPS, GULARAVE
GULUR CRC, TUMKUR TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT
8. SMT. RAJESHWARI B M
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
W/O PRABHU KUMAR R
ASSISTANT TEACHER, GHPS, BADDIHALLI
KYATHASANDRA CRC, TUMKUR TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
9. SRI NARASIMHAMURTHY H R
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
S/O LATE RAJANNA, ASSISTANT TEACHER
GHPS, NARASAPURA
BETTASANDRA CRC, MAGADI TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562127.
10. SRI GANGARAJAIAH V N
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
S/O LATE NANJAPPA, ASSISTANT TEACHER
GHPS, HEMAPURA, BETTASANDRA CRC
MAGADI TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT -562127.
3
11. SRI ZIA ULLA KHAN
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
S/O DASTAGIR KHAN
ASSISTANT TEACHER, GULPS, S S PALYA
KUDUR CRC, MAGADI TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT -562127.
12. SMT. SYEDA FARKUNDA BANU
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
W/O SYED MEER LAUIQ ALI
ASSISTANT TEACHER, GUHPS, GOLLAHALLI
KUDUR CRC, MAGADI TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562127.
13. SRI MARIDEVRU H
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
S/O HONNAGANGAIAH
P.E. TEACHER, GHPS, YALACHAVADI
KANAKAPURA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562117.
14. SRI NAGESH K N
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
S/O K M NANJAPPA
ASSISTANT TEACHER, GLPS, GORINABELE
YENTAGANAHALLI CRC
NELAMANGALA TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562123.
15. SURESHA R
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
S/O R. RANGAIAH
ASSISTANT TEACHER, GLPS MARASARAHALLI
HANUMANTHEGOWDANAPALYA CRC
NELAMANGALA TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562123.
16. SRI RENUKAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
S/O MALLESHAPPA, ASSISTANT TEACHER
GHPS, KACHANAHALLI
BOMMANAHALLI CRC, NELAMANGALA TALUK
4
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562123.
17. SMT. SHIVAMMA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
W/O A D RAMADASAPPA
ASSISTANT TEACHER, GLPS,
CHIKKAPUTTAIANAPALYA
HANUMANTHEGOWDANAPALYA CRC
NELAMANGALA TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562123.
18. SRI S V KARIVARADAIAH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
S/O PUTTAIAH, ASSISTANT TEACHER
GLPS, BAPUJINAGARA
KULAWANAHALLI CRC, NELAMANGALA TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562123.
19. SRI M R MALLIKARJUNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
S/O G RAJASHEKARAIAH
ASSISTANT TEACHER, GLPS,
MACHONAYAKANAHALLI
BOMMANAHALLI CRC, NELAMANGALA TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562123.
20. SMT. GULNAZ BEGUM
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
D/O LATE ABHIDH KHAN
ASSISTANT TEACHER, GHPS, KUTHAGATTA
SHIVAGANGE CRC, NELAMANGALA TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562123.
21. SRI RAMANJANAIAH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
S/O HANUMANTHAIAH
ASSISTANT TEACHER, GHPS, BYALAKERE
BYALAKERE CRC, MAGADI TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562127.
22. SRI GURURAJ C S
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
S/O SIDDARAMAIAH
5
ASSISTANT TEACHER, GHPS, ULLENAHALLI
ULLENAHALLI CRC, MAGADI TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562127.
23. SRI H SOMASHEKARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
S/O HONNASAMAIAH
ASSISTANT TEACHER, GLPS, DODDAHALLI
CHIKKAHALLI CRC, MAGADI TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562127.
24. RAJANNA G
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
S/O GANGAIAH, ASSISTANT TREACHER
GLPS, SRINIVASAPURA K G
HONNENAHALLI CRC, NELAMANGALA TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562123.
25. SMT. R. JAYALAKSHMAMMA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
W/O V. RAMANNA, ASSISTANT TEACHER
GLPS, ARALEDIBBA
SHIVAGANGE CRC, NELAMANGALA TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562123.
26. SRI NAGANARASIMHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
S/O NARASIMHAIAH, ASSISTANT TEACHER
GLPS, BEERAVARA
SOLUR CRC, MAGADI TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562127.
27. SRI G VENKATACHALAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
S/O M GOVINDAPPA, ASSISTANT TEACHER
GLPS, MALLIGUNTE, MADEGOWDANAHALLI CRC
MAGADI TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562127.
28. SMT. JAMEEL UNISA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
W/O ANWAR SHEIKH, ASSISTANT TEACHER
GUHPS, SOLUR CRC
6
MAGADI TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562127.
29. SMT. CHANDRAKUMARI
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
W/O N. SETHURAM, ASSISTANT TEACHER
GHPS, GUDEMARANAHALLI
GUDEMARANAHALLI CRC, MAGADI TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562127.
30. SMT. JAGADAMBHA R
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
W/O D.RAJANNA, ASSISTANT TEACHER
GLPS, GURUVANAHALLI
YENTAGANAHALLI CRC, NELAMANGALA TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT -562127.
31. SRI NAGARAJAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
S/O ANKAPPA, ASSISTANT TEACHER
GLPS, MEDARADODDI
CHIKKAMULUVADI CRC, KANAKAPURA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562117.
32. SMT. ANNAPOORNA N S
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
W/O NAGABHUSHANAIAH
ASSISTANT TEACHER, GHPS, MYGANAHALLI
MYGANAHALLI CRC, RAMANAGARA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562159.
33. SRI PRAKASH C R
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
S/O RAMAIAH, ASSISTANT TEACHER
GLPS, KOTTANAHALLI
SOLADEVANAHALLI CRC, NELAMANGALA TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562123.
34. SRI CHIKKAHONNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
S/O GANGAPPA, ASSISTANT TEACHER
GLPS, GUNGARAHALLI
LAKSHMIPURA CRC,
7
RAMANAGARA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT -562159.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI KANCHI MAYANNA GOUTHAM & KIRAN J., ADVS.)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, M S BUILDING
BANGALORE-560001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
NEW PUBLIC OFFICE
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BANGALORE-560001.
3. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
NEW PUBLIC OFFICE
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BANGALORE-560001.
4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
RAMANAGARA
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562159.
5. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
TUMKUR
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572104.
6. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 123.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. M.S. PRATHIMA, HCGP)
THESE PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR
THE ENTIRE RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE CASE OF THE
PETITIONERS AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO COUNT THE
PAST YEARS OF SERVICE PUT IN BY THESE PETITIONERS ON
8
HONORARY BASIS, FROM THE DATE OF THEIR INITIAL
APPOINTMENT UPTO THE DATE ON WHICH THEY WERE
SCREENED FOR REGULAR RECRUITMENT, BASED ON
PERCENTAGE OF MARKS OBTAINED IN THE QUALIFYING
EXAMINATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF SENIORITY, FIXATION OF
PAY-SCALE, INCREMENTS & OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS
FLOWING THEREON, IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS CONCERNED.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner Nos.1 to 6, 8 to 12 and 14 to 34 are working as Assistant Teachers and petitioner Nos.7 and 13 are working as Physical Education Teachers. According to the petitioners, their appointments were approved by respondent No.1. While approving the appointment, a condition having been imposed that the past service rendered from the date of appointment till the appointee was admitted for salary grant will be counted only for the purpose of leave and pension and thereby denied the notional annual increments, these writ petitions were filed on 07.03.2014, to direct the respondents to count the past years of service put in by these petitioners, from the date of their initial appointment upto the date on which they were screened for regular recruitment, for the purpose of 9 seniority, fixation of pay-scale, increments and other consequential service benefits.
2. Sri Kanchi Mayanna Goutham, learned advocate for the petitioners contended that the writ petitions filed by some of the Teachers working in different educational institutions seeking to reckon their services from the date of their initial appointment up to the date of approval for the purpose of fixation of pay scale, seniority and all other benefits having allowed and the writ appeals and the Special Leave Petitions filed by the Government having been dismissed, as is evident from Annexures - B, C and D, the respondents have an obligation to extend the same benefit to the petitioners. He submitted that, since the respondent No.1 has not extended the said benefits to the petitioners, there is violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
3. Perused the writ record.
10
4. There is an averment in para 10 of the writ petition that the petitioners approached the respondents to consider their claims but the respondents turned a deaf ear. Such a submission cannot be accepted. The demand must be in writing, so that the competent authority can secure the relevant records and take decision in the matter. Since the petitioners have not made individual demand by furnishing the full particulars with regard to the claims made in these writ petitions with the concerned respondents, these writ petitions for issue of writ of mandamus is untenable.
5. In A. Prabhakara Reddy vs. The State of Karnataka and others, 1980 (1) KLJ 456, with regard to issuance of writ of mandamus to the authorities, it has been held as follows:
"9. As a rule this Court exercising it's under Article 226 of the Constitution will issue a Writ of mandamus to the Authorities like the 1st and 2nd respondents if they failed to discharge their duties arising out of legal Obligations, in spite of a written demand it is only when such duties are cast on the authorities and they fail to perform them, the right to seek a Writ of Mandamus arises in favour of the citizen."11
6. In Sri. D.L. Chowda Reddy and others vs. The State of Karnataka, by its Secretary, Department of Primary Education and others, ILR 2013 Kar 5085, considering the object of Writ of Mandamus and criteria for issue of Writ of Mandamus, in a case relating to the identical claim, it was held as follows:
"2. The object of issue of writ of mandamus is to compel performance of a legal duty. A mandamus will be issued to a person aggrieved who approaches the Court, if he makes out (i) existence of a legal right in him and a corresponding obligation on the respondent to perform a legal duty and (ii) refusal, either express or implied, by the respondent to perform such duty, in spite of a demand. Where a petition seeking mandamus is not preceded by demand for performance of a legal duty, the Court cannot entertain such a petition."
7. In Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation and another vs. Diamond & Gem Development Corporation Limited and another, (2013) 5 SCC 470, Apex Court has held that while granting a writ, the Court must make every effort to ensure from the averments of the writ petition, there exists proper pleadings. With regard to the writ of mandamus, it has been held as follows :-
12
"22......In order to maintain the writ of mandamus, the first and foremost requirement is that the petition must not be frivolous, and must be filed in good faith. Additionally, the applicant must make a demand which is clear, plain and unambiguous. It must be made to an officer having the requisite authority to perform the act demanded. Furthermore, the authority against whom mandamus is issued, should have rejected the demand earlier. Therefore, a demand and its subsequent refusal, either by words, or by conduct, are necessary to satisfy the court that the opposite party is determined to ignore the demand of the applicant with respect to the enforcement of his legal right."
8. Sri Kanchi Mayanna Goutham, conceded that prior to filing of these writ petitions, the petitioners did not submit any written representations to the respondents, to extend the service benefits on par with the relief, which the teachers working in other institutions have got by virtue of the orders passed, vide Annexures - B, C and D. The petitioners having not made demand in writing with competent authority having the requisite authority to perform the demand and there being no opportunity for the competent authority to examine the claims and take decision in the matters, these writ petitions for issue of 13 writ mandamus to the respondents, in view of the ratio of law in the decisions, noticed supra, is not entertainable.
In the result, writ petitions are rejected. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to approach office of the authority having the requisite authority to perform the act demanded and for extending benefits. If the competent authority does not act in the matter within a reasonable period, it is open to the petitioners to seek relief, if any, in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE ca