Karnataka High Court
N Manjunatha vs M R N V High School on 19 January, 2018
Author: Raghvendra S.Chauhan
Bench: Raghvendra S. Chauhan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN
WRIT PETITION No.55239/2017 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
N. MANJUNATHA
S/O NARASIMHEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/AT GUNDATHURU VILLAGE,
N BELATHURU POST,
ANTHARASANTHE HOBLI,
H D KOTE TALUK-571114,
MYSURU DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI M. S. RAJENDRA PRASAD, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M.R.N.V. HIGH SCHOOL
OFFICE NEAR OLD BRIDGE,
HUNSUR TOWN,
MYSURU DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
M R NAGARAJASHETTY,
S/O LATE MAKKAM RAMASWAMYSHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 92 YEARS,
R/AT OLD BRIDGE, K R NAGAR ROAD,
OPPOSITE ING VYSYA BANK,
HUNSUR TOWN-571105,
MYSURU DISTRICT.
2. HARISH
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
VICE PRESIDENT,
M.R.N.V.HIGH SCHOOL,
OLD BRIGADE ROAD,
HUNSUR TOWN-571105.
2
3. H S ASHOK KUMAR
S/O MAKKAM SURYANARANASHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
SECRETARY,
M.R.N.V.HIGH SCHOOL,
OLD BRIGADE ROAD,
HUNSUR TOWN-571105.
4. H S SUBRAMANYA GUPTA
S/O. MAKKAM SURYANARAYANASHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
TRUSTEE,
M.R.N.V HIGH SCHOOL,
OLD BRIGADE ROAD,
HUNSUR TOWN-571105.
5. SUDESH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
TRUSTEE,
M.R.N.V.HIGH SCHOOL,
OLD BRIGADE ROAD,
HUNSUR TOWN-571105.
6. H NAGENDRA GUPTA,
S/O. H A SUBBASHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
JANSI LAKSHMIBAI CROSS ROAD,
TRUSTEE,
M.R.N.V. HIGH SCHOOL,
OLD BRIGADE ROAD,
HUNSUR TOWN-571105.
7. H D SUREGOWDA
S/O DYAVEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
HEAD MASTER,
M.R.N.V. HIGH SCHOOL,
OLD BRIGADE ROAD,
HUNSUR TOWN-571105.
8. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER
HUNSUR TOWN-571105,
MYSURU DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENTS
3
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE JUDGMENT
DATED 09.11.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-A IN EAT NO.2/2015 ON THE
FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND EDUCATIONAL
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT MYSURU, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW BY
ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION AS PRAYED, AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the legality of the order dated 9.11.2017, passed by the Principal District Judge and Educational Appellate Tribunal at Mysuru, whereby the learned Tribunal has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 94 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 ('the said Act' for short).
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that in March 2007, the petitioner had earned the degree of Bachelor of Education from Bangalore University. He had also acquired degree of Master of Arts from Karnataka State Open University, Mysuru. While the petitioner was working as a Lecturer at the Basweshwara Pre- University College, Piryapatna, on 27.5.2011, he applied to the M.R.N.V. High School. Subsequently, he was appointed as a Lecturer for Kannada. Consequently, on 1.6.2011, he reported for duty. He further claims that he worked for the respondent - 4 Management till 1.7.2014. However, after the said date, he was not permitted to discharge his duties, and his services were terminated by an oral order. Therefore, he filed an appeal before the learned Tribunal. In order to buttress his case, he examined four witnesses, and submitted fifty-five documents. In turn, the respondent - Management examined three witnesses, and submitted nine documents. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal has dismissed the petitioner's appeal. Hence, this petition before this Court.
3. Mr. M. S. Rajendra Prasad, the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, has pleaded that the learned Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence on proper perspective. Since the petitioner has made certain complaints against the respondent - Management with regard to fraud, obstruction, and conspiracy played by them, the Management had prevented the petitioner from discharging his services from 1.7.2014.
4. Moreover, in his appeal he had clearly stated that the letter dated 30.6.2014 (Ex.R3), is a letter to which he was forced to sign. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has erred in relying upon Ex.R3, in order to conclude that it is the petitioner, 5 who had left the job. Hence, the question of oral termination does not even arise. According to the learned counsel, the conclusion is highly misplaced. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to the set aside by this Court.
5. Heard the learned Senior Counsel, and perused the impugned order.
6. The first argument of the learned Senior Counsel is unacceptable. For, although the petitioner has claimed that fraud, obstruction, and conspiracy were played and hatched against him, he has not given any instance of fraud or conspiracy played or hatched against him. Therefore, the allegation that the Management has played any fraud or conspiracy against him, is without any evidentiary basis.
7. Even the second argument being raised by the learned counsel is unsustainable. In Ex.R3, letter dated 30.6.2014, the petitioner has clearly stated that "I received the salary for the month of April and May, amounting to Rs.12,500/-. There is no arrears of salary." Relying on this document, the learned Tribunal is justified in concluding that in case the petitioner had 6 actually worked for June 2014, he would not have stated in the letter dated 30.6.2014, that there are no arrears of salary. Thus, according to the learned Tribunal, it is the petitioner, who had stopped working after the month of May 2014.
8. Moreover, in case the letter was signed by the petitioner under coercion or compulsion, there is no reason why the petitioner has not taken any steps against the Management under the criminal law. From 2014 till present, the petitioner has maintained a studied silence, and yet he would have this Court believe that the said letter was signed by him under compulsion. The plea that the letter has been singed under coercion is merely a clever ploy to save his own skin.
9. The learned Tribunal has also noticed the fact that there were certain allegations against the petitioner, such as, due to his constant harassment, a student in the school had jumped from the third floor. Even the girl's father has been examined by the Management as a witness. Even in his cross-examination, the petitioner has admitted that such an incidence had taken place.
7
10. After holistically appreciating the evidence, the learned Tribunal is justified in concluding that it is not a case of oral termination of the petitioner's services, but it is the petitioner who had voluntarily left the job of the respondent Management. Therefore, the case does not fall within the scope of Section 94 of the Act. Since the learned Tribunal has given cogent and valid reasons for its conclusion, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. Since, this petition is devoid of merits, it is hereby, dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE MD