Karnataka High Court
Kuberappa vs The Chairman on 11 October, 2019
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R. Devdas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION No.102069/2016 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
KUBERAPPA DODDAVEERAPPA JANGANNAVAR,
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
R/O: VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.PRASHANT V.MOGALI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE CHAIRMAN,
KANAKADAS SHIKSHANA SAMITI,
VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI.
2. THE PRINCIPAL,
KANAKADAS SHIKSHANA SAMITI'S
ARTS AND COMMERCE COLLEGE,
VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI.
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
R/B ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU.
4. THE COMMISSIONER,
HIGHER COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
BENGALURU.
5. THE JOINT DIRECTOR,
HIGHER EDUCATION,
MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA,
2
OPP:P.W.D. OFFICE,
DHARWAD. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SURESH N.KINI, ADV. FOR R2,
R1- SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED,
SRI RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK, HCGP FOR R3 TO R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
JUDGEMENT AND DECREE IN M.A. (E.A.T) 04/2013 VIDE
ANNEXURE-C AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO
RECOMMEND THE NAME OF PETITIONER FOR THE POST OF
KANNADA LECTURER AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioner herein is assailing the order dated
02.01.2016 passed by the Education Appellate Tribunal in M.A.(E.A.T.) 04/2013.
2. It is the contention of the petitioner that he was appointed as Kannada Lecturer in the 1st respondent-institution. It is also contended that his appointment has been approved by the institution and the institution sent the petitioner for refresher course. It was contended by the petitioner before the Tribunal 3 that the petitioner has put in more than 20 years of service in the 1st respondent-institution and the Management, contrary to the bye-laws of the institution intended to terminate the services of the petitioner illegally and highhandedly. The prayer of the petitioner before the Tribunal was seeking a direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue his service in the institution as Kannada Lecturer and pay arrears of salary and other perks commensurate to his post and for such other reliefs.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal erred in holding that the petitioner was a temporary Lecturer and the provisions of the Karnataka Education Act would be applicable, only if the employee is a permanent employee.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-institution would submit that the petitioner was appointed as a Kannada lecturer with effect from 4 04.02.1993. However, the petitioner left the institution abruptly during the month of February, 2000 and caused great hardship to the institution and the students since the petitioner did not make himself available in the institution after February, 2000 during the period of examinations. Thereafter, another person has been appointed as Kannada Lecturer. It is further submitted that though the petitioner abandoned his service in February, 2000, the appeal was filed in the year 2013 after a lapse of 13 years. Learned counsel further draws the attention of this Court to the memorandum of writ petition and submits that the appeal preferred by the petitioner was an afterthought having found out that the respondent-institution had requested the State Government for grant-in-aid to the institution and to the posts of Lecturers including the Kannada Lecturer. It is therefore submitted that no infirmity could be found in the impugned order passed 5 by the Tribunal and therefore, prays that the petition be dismissed.
5. Heard the learned counsels and perused the writ papers.
6. On a close reading of the impugned order, it can be seen that the Tribunal has bestowed its attention to the provisions of Section 94 of the Karnataka Education Act and the decisions cited by the learned counsels. The Tribunal has taken note of the decision of this Court in the case of CATHOLIC BOARD OF EDUCATION, MANGALORE VS. THERESA D'SOUZA reported in [2002 (1) KLJ 210] wherein this Court had held that to avail the benefit of the Act in regard to the service conditions as contemplated under Section 94 of the Act, the employee must be a permanent employee. Moreover, at the threshold, the fact that the appeal was preferred by the petitioner after a lapse of 13 years was 6 sufficient to dismiss the appeal on the ground of delay and laches.
7. Though, it has been contended by the petitioner that he continued to work in respondent- institution, it is only when the management contemplated removal of the petitioner that he filed the appeal, no such material is placed before the Tribunal nor before this Court. When it is the assertion of the respondent-institution that the petitioner abandoned the service during February, 2000, the question of payment of salary to the petitioner did not arise. On the other hand, if the petitioner is contending that till the date of filing of the appeal, he continued to serve the institution, such contention is not supported by any material evidence. Another aspect to be seen is that, when it was contended by the respondent-institution that the petitioner is a temporary employee, to overcome that contention, the petitioner was required to place on 7 record substantial material. Even on that aspect, no material is forthcoming and therefore, the contentions of the petitioner cannot be countenanced.
8. Viewed from any angle, the petition is bereft of any merit and therefore, the petition is dismissed.
(Sd/-) JUDGE Jm-paragraphs 1 to 6, Mbs- paragraphs 7 and 8