Karnataka High Court
Rajeev Educational Trust vs Mr M V Ramesha on 9 April, 2026
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:19996
WP No. 14128 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 14128 OF 2021 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. RAJEEV EDUCATIONAL TRUST
GOVT. HOSPITAL ROAD
HASSAN- 573 201
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
2. RAJEEV INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
PLOT NO. 1-D(P-1) GROWTH CENTER
INDUSTRIAL AREA
BENALURU - MANGALORE BYPASS ROAD
HASSAN- 573 201
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. RAJESH SHETTIGAR., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by
SHARADAVANI MR M V RAMESHA
B
Location: High
S/O VENKATE GOWDA
Court of MAJOR,
Karnataka
R/AT MADIKEHOSAHALLI,
HULIKOD (P),
ARAKALGUD TALUK.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SANCHAN JAI NANDAN., ADVOCATE)
THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED 20.03.2021 PASSED BY THE PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE AND
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:19996
WP No. 14128 of 2021
HC-KAR
EDUCATION APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, HASSAN IN M.A.(EAT) NO.02/2015
VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B
GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, the petitioners have sought for the following reliefs:
"(i) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 20/03/2021 passed by the Prl. District Judge & Education Appellate Tribunal, Hassan in M.A. (ΕΑΤ) No. 02/2015 vide ANNEXURE-A.
(ii) Issue any other writ or order or direction that deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity."
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.
3. This petition filed by the respondents - Management in M.A.(EAT) No.2/2015, directed against the impugned order dated 20.03.2021, whereby the Educational Appellate Tribunal ( for short -3- NC: 2026:KHC:19996 WP No. 14128 of 2021 HC-KAR 'the EAT') allowed the appeal filed by the respondent and thereby set-aside the letter/Order dated 07.05.2015 issued by Petitioner No.2, removing the respondent from the service of the post of a lecturer and directed to re-instate to his earlier post by reserving liberty in favour of the appellant to take action in accordance with law in terms of the said order.
4. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent having been appointed as a lecturer in the Department of Civil Engineering and having joined duty on 10.02.2011, the appellant management passed an order dated 07.05.2015, which was assailed by the respondent before the EAT in the aforesaid M.A.(EAT) No.2/2015. The said appeal having been contested by the petitioners, the respondent examined himself as PW1 and documentary evidence at Exs.P1 to P13 were marked, while the petitioner management examined one Dr. A. N. Radhakrishna as RW1 and documentary evidence at Exs.R1 to R47 were marked on behalf of the petitioners. After hearing on both sides, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the impugned removal letter/Order dated 07.05.2015 issued by petitioner No.2, removing the respondent from service from the post of the lecturer was illegal -4- NC: 2026:KHC:19996 WP No. 14128 of 2021 HC-KAR and consequently, directed reinstatement of the respondent to the earlier post with back wages.
5. However, the Tribunal Reserved liberty in favour of the petitioner to take action in accordance with law as hereunder.
"ORDER The appeal is allowed with costs.
The letter/Order dated: 07.05.2015 issued by nd the 2 respondent removing the appellant from service from the post of Lecturer is set aside.
The respondents are directed to re-instate the appellant to his earlier post with back wages.
The respondents are at liberty to take action in accordance with law against the appellant, with regard to his educational qualification for teaching Engineering classes in view of 6th Pay Commission Report and norms and guidelines of A.I.C.T.E & V.T.U, and his absence from 01.08.2014 till the date of relieved him from service."
6. Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, petitioners are before this Court by way of the present petition.
7. A perusal of the material on record including pleadings of the parties and oral and documentary evidence adduced by both -5- NC: 2026:KHC:19996 WP No. 14128 of 2021 HC-KAR sides will clearly indicate that the Tribunal has come to the correct conclusion that the respondent had proved that his removal from service by petitioner No.2 as per order dated 07.05.2015 was illegal. However, having regard to the specific contention of the petitioners that the respondent did not possess the requisite qualification, the Tribunal thought it fit and proper to balance equities and reserve liberty in favour of the petitioners to proceed against the respondent in accordance with law by holding as under:
"JUDGMENT The appellant has preferred this appeal Under Sec.94(1) of the Karnataka Education Act 1983, for setting aside the letter/order dated: 07.05.2015 issued by the 2nd respondent, removing him (appellant) from the service from the post of Lecturer and to direct the respondents to re-instate him to the post of Lecturer in the Department of Civil Engineering in the institution of 2nd respondent and to pay the salary from 01.08.2014 with continuity of service and all consequential benefits and cost of the appeal.
2. The case of the appellant is as follows:-
He is a first class graduate in Civil Engineering i.e. B.E.(Civil). In response to the advertisement issued by the respondents calling for applications from the candidates for the post of Lecturers in Civil Engineering in 2nd respondent institution, he made an application -6- NC: 2026:KHC:19996 WP No. 14128 of 2021 HC-KAR for appointment of that post. At that time the qualification required for the post of Lecturer as per A.I.C.T.E notification dated: 15.03.2000, was the first class Bachelor's degree in the appropriate Branch of engineering/technology. After holding interview on 04.02.2011 the respondent No.1 appointed him as a lecturer in the department of civil engineering in respondent No.2 institution, in the A.I.C.T.E. pay scale and he joined for duty on 10.02.2011. Since from the date of joining for duty, he rendered sincere and satisfactory service without any complaint whatsoever from any quarters. For the reasons best known to the respondents, his name was removed without any reasons by the respondents from the attendance records of the college from 01.08.2014. Further no work was allocated to him since then. He apprehends that the said acts of the respondents was with the sole intention of harassing him and to dismiss or remove him from service. He gave a representation on 20.08.2014 in this regard to the 2nd respondent and seeks a reply about the same. On 23.08.2014 the 2nd respondent has given a reply alleging that said fact was when enquired with the staff, they admitted that it happened without their knowledge. It was also alleged that attendance was marked by bio-metric method on 01.08.2014 and again the appellant remained absent from 02.08.2014 to 10.08.2014 and again the presence was noted from 11.08.2014 to 14.08.2014 and that the appellant was absent for duties again from 12.08.2014.-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:19996 WP No. 14128 of 2021 HC-KAR Since from 01.08.2014, he was not allocated any subject. He issued a notice dated: 15.09.2014 through his counsel narrating the facts and demanding payment of salary from August 2014 and further continuing his service. The 2nd respondent replied the same by letter dated: 29.09.2012 reiterating the earlier allegations and blaming the appellant and further stating that it has been very lenient towards him and demanding that he may give an affidavit that he could conduct himself so that he would not repeat such things and get information about the academic work to be done in future. The respondent No.2 in furtherance of above said letter, referring again to the letter dated:
20.08.2014 of the appellant, letter dated: 23.08.2014 of the respondent No.2, legal notice dated: 15.09.2014 issued to the appellant, reply notice dated: 29.09.2014, wrote another letter dated: 13.10.2014 reiterating the demand made in its earlier letter dated: 29.09.2014. He replied to the same by reiterating his earlier stand. It was also pointed out that no salary was paid, no opportunity was given to teach any subject though he was regularly attending the college. The respondent No.2 wrote a letter dated: 27.11.2014/15.12.2014 again controverting the facts stated by the appellant and reiterating that the appellant may realize the mistakes and give an affidavit and meet the Departmental Head, Principal and President, if he so desires within one week from the date of receipt of the letter, failing which, it may be presumed that he has no intention to -8- NC: 2026:KHC:19996 WP No. 14128 of 2021 HC-KAR continue in the institute and action will be taken to appoint some other person in his place. When this was the situation, he received a letter dated: 18.02.2015 along with a common notice dated: 06.02.2015 issued to him and others. In the letter dated: 18.02.2015 it was stated that since the appellant was not available in the campus, it was sent to him by registered post. In the common notice dated: 06.02.2015 it was stated that as per the norms and guidelines issued by A.I.C.T.E & V.T.U circulars dated: 03.02.2015, the minimum qualification to teach B.E. Classes is M.Tech and faculty members who are having only undergraduate courses are not considered for approval by VTU, Belgaum. It was further stated that faculty members who are working with them having B.E. degree are instructed to go for M.Tech with immediate effect at their own personal cost and they cannot consider continuing their services with effect from 15.02.2015.
He had the requisite qualification to be appointed as a lecturer when he was appointed. There was a revision of scale of pay with effect from 01.01.2006 pay scale and service conditions in respect of Teachers, Librarians etc in degree level technical institutions as per G.O.No.ED96DTE2010 dated: 07.03.2011 and amongst other things, certain norms and guidelines were prescribed in the Appendixs. It is stated that lecturers already serving and having only B.E. first class degree shall be removed from service. Such being the position, he (appellant) did not answer the -9- NC: 2026:KHC:19996 WP No. 14128 of 2021 HC-KAR above said notice dated: 06.02.2015. He was issued with the letter/order dated: 07.05.2015 referring to the letter dated: 06.02.2015 stating that the minimum educational qualification required for the teaching faculty for undergraduate engineering course is post graduation in the relevant field as per the norms and guidelines of A.I.C.T.E & V.T.U, that since he did not satisfy the said requirements he was relived from the post of lecturer and that too stating that it is with effect from the date of unauthorised absence since August 2014.
Aggrieved by the letter/order dated: 07.05.2015, removing him from the service and thereby terminating his services, he filed this appeal on the following grounds:-
His termination from the service is opposed to facts, law and probabilities of the case. Though it is stated as a relieving order, it is actually removing him from service and also dismissing him from service; Without holding any enquiry, order passed for relieving him from service, as such not giving opportunity to him before passing the impugned order, is opposed to the principles of natural justice. The said order is not clear as to whether it is an order of dismissal for unauthorised absence from 01.08.2014 or removal for not holding requisite qualification as per A.I.C.T.E & V.T.U guidelines and norms and a composite order of this type cannot withstand the scrutiny of law. He was actually prevented from discharging his duties from
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19996 WP No. 14128 of 2021 HC-KAR 01.08.2014 by deletion of his name in the attendance register and importantly not allocating work to him. He was not discharging his duties as lecturer was not out of his violation, but due to the arbitrary and vindictive attitude of the respondents, and calling his absence from 01.08.2014 as unauthorized absence was baseless. He was appointed in 2011 with qualification as First class B.E.(Civil). He joined the duty on 10.02.2011. At no time he was informed that he should hold P.G.degree in B.E.(Civil) to be appointed as a lecturer. There is no such norm and guidelines issued by A.I.C.T.E. & V.T.U at the relevant time that one should possess P.G.degree to teach students for undergraduate courses. Infact there is no guidelines issued by V.T.U in this regard. The A.I.C.T.E. Circular is dated: 07.03.2011, by which time he was already working as lecturer. It does not say that lecturer already working with B.E. qualification should be removed from service. If an enquiry was held, he could have defended himself, but as it was not done, he could not defended himself either about unauthorised absence or about not possessing requisite qualification. Relieving him from the post of lecturer with effect from 01.08.2014 is illegal as it is not clear from which date he was not entitled to hold the post of lecturer. The impugned order dated: 07.05.2015 is vitiated since the experience certificate dated: 24.12.2014 was prepared much prior to 07.05.2015, which shows that removing him from the service was pre-meditated. The order of
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19996 WP No. 14128 of 2021 HC-KAR removing him from services is issued by the 2nd respondent's Principal which could not have been done since he is not the appointing authority and he had no authority to issue the same. He has not been gainfully employed since 01.08.2014 and he is facing financial crises. Viewed from any angle, the letter/order dated:
07.05.2015, relieving him from the post of lecturer that too with effect from August 2014 is illegal, perverse and contrary to law. Hence, prays to allow the appeal.
5. The respondent No.1 and 2 have appeared before the court through their counsel and filed the written statement denying the case of appellant, except admitting some averments stated in the appeal memo.
It is stated in the written statement that the respondents had not given any advertisement calling for the post of Lecturers. The appellant had approached the 2nd respondent institution and had sought appointment as Lecturer. The 1st respondent after conducting interview had appointed the appellant as Lecturer. The appellant during his tenure as lecturer in the 2nd respondent institution had created lot of nuisance and the 2nd respondent had received lot of complaints both orally and written against him. The appellant was advised to correct himself on many occasions in this regard, but he had not put any effort to correct himself. He had given a representation on 20.08.2014 alleging
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19996 WP No. 14128 of 2021 HC-KAR that his name was deliberately removed from the attendance register. The said error was committed by the office staff inadvertently. The allegation of the appellant that it was done with the sole intention of harassing and to dismiss him is highly irrational, as it was the appellant himself who resorted to a defiant attitude by not following the procedure of consulting the HOD to get the work allocation charge before start of the semester period (i.e. 01.08.2014). The error (omission of his name) was rectified later. He did not contact the HOD to collect the work allocation memo, as was the procedure in vogue. Even if no work was found to have been assigned, he could have approached his HOD for clarification. The statement of the appellant that no opportunity was given to teach any subject, though he was regularly attending the college is contrary to facts. Bio-metric attendance record shows that he was not attended the college on most of the days. He has also not contacted his superiors in the matter of work assignment. His claim for salary is not tenable as he was absent for duty. The work allocation would be done around 10 to 12 days earlier to commencement of each semester. In respect of the above said averment, work allocation was done to this appellant through the memo. But since the appellant did not attend the college, a fresh work allocation memo was issued by re allocating the work to another lecturer. The memo
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19996 WP No. 14128 of 2021 HC-KAR produced by the appellant is the one prepared subsequently when the appellant did not attend the college. If at all he was not allocated any work, he should have contacted his superiors for instructions. He was asked several times to contact the HOD/Principal. The reminder dated:
27.11.2014/15.12.2014 was given in the interest of both the appellant and students. It is not true that the order of relieving the appellant from the service was made without holding any enquiry. He was asked several times to meet the HOD/Principal and to report for duty. The 1" respondent who is also the appointing authority had sent words to the appellant to contact him personally, but he did not turn up discussions. Since the termination is with effect from the date of the unauthorised absence of the appellant, (i.e. from 01.08.2014) the other reason has no relevance. The appellant was not prevented by anyone from discharging his duties from 01.08.2014. Generally teaching staff would be allotted subjects before the commencement of the classes of each semester and the concerned staff would collect the allocation memo from the HOD and prepare for the classes. In respect of this appellant also subjects were allotted, but he failed to collect the said allocation memo/chart. he did not contact the HOD either to collect the allocation memo or to inform about the omission of his name in the attendance register. The appellant did not
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19996 WP No. 14128 of 2021 HC-KAR meet the HOD and collect the allocation memo, as was the procedure followed. He did not inform about the omission of his name in the attendance register to anyone, immediately. He did not mark bio metric attendance on most of the days. The bio metric attendance system is in force even prior to 01.08.2014. Mere attendance will not absolve the appellant from his other responsibilities. He was reminded several times to meet the HOD /Principal and to report for duty. He showed disrespect to the 1st respondent by not responding to the letters written by the respondents. He was appointed during Feb.2011 in the scale of pay applicable as per the 5th pay commission report. The said report prescribed a minimum qualification to teach B.E classes, as B.E. with first class. The scale of pay applicable as per the 5th pay commission report was the one given to all the teaching staff in the respondent institution, irrespective of the qualification i.e. B.E/B.E. and M.Tech. The 6th pay scale (as per G.O. Dated: 07.03.2011) was implemented in the respondent Institution from September 2012, and the benefit given to those having the required qualification as per the 6th pay commission report. As per the said report the minimum qualification to teach B.E. classes is B.E & M.Tech. Since the appellant did not possess the requisite qualification, he was not given the 6th pay scale. Since the minimum qualification prescribed in
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19996 WP No. 14128 of 2021 HC-KAR the 6th pay commission report is B.E. and M.Tech as per AICTE norms, and the VTU in its circular dated: 07.01.2015, informed the respondent institution that the Local Inspection Committee of VTU will be inspecting the respondent Institution shortly and as such to comply the deficiencies. As there were about 8-10 staff with B.E. qualification which was considered to be a major deficiency, the respondent institution had no option but to serve notice to those having only B.Ε. qualification to pursue M.Tech and if they fail to do so, they cannot be considered for continuing in service. Every staff with B.E. qualification working in the respondent institute knew the requirement of M.Tech qualification to teach B.E. Classes. Oral instructions about this requirement were also given to all the staff who are having B.E. qualification. The appellant was also advised orally in this regard at the time of his appointment. There was provision to do M.Tech while working. Accordingly a few staff who were possessing B.E. degree have registered with the university for pursuing M.Tech course and they were continued in the service of the respondent institution. He remained absent from his duties for nearly 6½ months (from 01.08.2014). inspite of reminders from the respondent institution and inspite of lot of advice, he did not mend his ways. Hence the order of relieving him from his duties with retrospective effect (i.e. from 01.08.2014) is in order
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19996 WP No. 14128 of 2021 HC-KAR and cannot be terms as illegal. The Principal of the 2nd respondent institution has been authorised to relieve the appellant from duties.
After his appointment as a lecturer in the 2nd respondent institution, he worked without complaints only for a period of one year and after one year, the management started getting lot of complaints about his work and behavior. The management tried its level best to give opportunity to the appellant to correct himself. In this regard, he was personally advised by his superiors on many occasions. The appellant for the reasons best known to him did not heed to the said advice, but instead went on repeating the mistakes again and again. As a result of which complaints against him started coming in writing. Without having any other alternative the appellant was summoned by the management and was strictly instructed to mend his ways. He was also reprimanded for his audacious behavior with his students and colleagues. Memo in writing was avoided with the only intention of not jeopardizing his career. Inspite of all this, the appellant was given all benefits including increment in his salary. The appellant without any valid reason started remaining absent in an unauthorized manner. Lot of correspondence took place between the appellant and the management in respect of his unauthorised absence and also in respect of his non-committal attitude towards his work and duties. He was given
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19996 WP No. 14128 of 2021 HC-KAR sufficient time of nearly 6/½ months (from 01.08.2014) to contact the HOD/Principal and report for duty, but he never realized his lapses, and never complied with the instructions. The appellant was removed from service by the implication of necessity. Hence, the enquiry is redundant. The termination of the appellant is valid and is not either irregular or illegal. In the appointment letter issued to the appellant, it is very clearly stated that he shall abide by the rules and regulations of the respondent institute and trust. The rule of the government that only persons who had post graduation are eligible to work as faculty has to be followed by all the institutions including the 2nd respondent institution. As such the termination of the appellant's appointment for want of requisite qualification is in accordance with law. If the respondent institution were to have not followed the rule of law, violation of the rules would have exposed the entire institution for action by the university/Government. The result of which would have been the de-affiliation of the institution, which would have affected hundreds of faculty and staff apart from thousands of students. His termination had preceded lot of correspondence. The appellant was replaced by a qualified faculty member soon after the termination of the appellant. If the contention of the appellant were to be considered in his favour, a qualified faculty member would be affected. Viewed from any angle, the
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19996 WP No. 14128 of 2021 HC-KAR contention of the appellant can not be considered in his favour. Hence, prays to dismiss the appeal.
6. In order to prove the case, the appellant Ramesh M.V. examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13.
On behalf of respondents Dr.A.N.Ramakrishna, Principal, Rajeev Institute of Technology (2nd respondent) examined as R.W.1 and got marked Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.47.
7. Arguments heard on both side and perused the case records and written arguments both side counsels.
8. The points that arise for my consideration are as follows:-
1) Whether the appellant proves that his removal from the service by the 2nd respondent as per Order dated: 07.05.2015, is illegal?
2) Whether the appellant is entitled for the reliefs sought in the appeal memo?
3) What order?
9. My answer to the above points are as follows:-
Point No.1 In the affirmative.
Point No.2- In the affirmative.
Point No.3- See the final order for the following: -
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19996 WP No. 14128 of 2021 HC-KAR : REASONS:
Point No.1: -
10. It is not in dispute that appellant-M.V. Ramesha was appointed as a lecturer in the Engineering College of 2nd respondent on 04.02.2011 and he reported to the duty in the said college on 10.02.2011. Since then he was working as a lecturer till 31.07.2014. At that time the qualification required for the post of lecturer was B.E. with first class. He had such qualification. hence, he was appointed as a lecturer as per the 5th Pay Commission Report. In other words, as per the 5th Pay Commission report prescribed minimum qualification to teach B.E. classes was B.E with first class.
11. The case of the appellant is that his name was deleted from the attendance register on 01.08.2014 and since then he was not allocated to any work in the college. In this regard some correspondence took place between him and the 2nd respondent college. He was not allowed to do the work in the college since 01.08.2014. Thereafter, he received the letter from the 2nd respondent college on 18.02.2015 along with a common notice dated: 06.02.2015. In the said common notice it is stated that he has to go for M.Tech with immediate effect, and their service cannot be continued with effect from 16.02.2015. Thereafter on 07.05.2015, Principal of 2nd
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19996 WP No. 14128 of 2021 HC-KAR respondent college passed an order stating that minimum education qualification required for teaching B.E. classes is post graduation as per the norms and guidelines of A.L.C.T.C. & V.T.U. He has not satisfied the said requirement. Hence, relieving him from the post of lecturer with retrospective effect from the date of unauthorised absence since August 2014. He has further contended that the respondents have not at all conducted any enquiry against him and passed the said relieve order, which amounts to terminate him from the service. The said act of the 2nd respondent Institution is illegal and contrary to Section 92(1) of The Karnataka Education Act 1983. If the enquiry was conducted he could have defended himself in respect of the allegations made against him, either about unauthorised absence or about not possessing requisite qualification, but enquiry was not done, hence he could not defended himself. Apart that, the Principal of 2nd respondent institution has no power at all to issue letter pass the order dated: 07.05.2015, removing him from service. The Management has got such power, but the said order not passed by the Management. Hence, viewed from any angle the order dated: 07.05.2015 removing him from the service is illegal and void. Hence, prays to allow the appeal and set aside the said order dated: 07.05.2015, and re-instate him in
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19996 WP No. 14128 of 2021 HC-KAR service and give the other reliefs prayed in the appeal memo.
12. The respondents have denied/opposed the said contentions of the appellant. They have contended that the name of the appellant deleted from the attendance register on 01.08.2014 is without their knowledge and it was occurred by mistake and thereafter rectified the said mistake. The respondents have received several complaints against the appellant from the students, and his colleagues and others with respect to his work and behavior. Inspite of that the respondents have tolerated him. The respondents have directed him to contact the HOD/Principal and to get work chart for doing work in the college. Inspite of that he did not approach the HOD/Principal and not taken the work chart for doing work. In this regard several letter correspondence took place between them and the appellant. It is further contended that the appellant was appointed during the month of February 2011 in the pay scale applicable as per the 5th Pay Commission Report. As per the said 5th Pay Commission Report, minimum required qualification to teach B.E. classes, is B.E. with first class. The 6th pay scale (as per G.O.dated: 07.03.2011) was implemented in the 2nd respondent institution from September 2012, and the benefit given to those having the required qualification as per the 6th pay commission report. As per the said report the
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19996 WP No. 14128 of 2021 HC-KAR minimum qualification to teach B.E. classes is B.E. & M.Tech (as per the Appendix IV of G.O dated:
07.03.2011). Since he did not possess the said qualification, he was not given 6th pay scale. The 2nd respondent institution had sent a notice to the appellant on 18.02.2015 along with notice dated:
06.02.2015 and in the said notice stated that the appellant Ramesh and some other lecturers who are having qualification B.E. only to go for M.Tech with immediate effect at their own personal cost and they (respondents) can not consider to continuing their services as lecturers in their Institution with effect from 16.02.2015. Inspite of that, he did not give application to the college, seeking permission to pursue M.Tech. In other words, he has not satisfied the required qualification as per the 6th Pay Commission Report to teach the engineering classes. As per the said Report, he must have B.E and M.E/M.Tech for teaching the Engineering classes(B.E. Classes), but he had not possessed such qualification. Hence, Principal of 2nd respondent institution had sent a letter on 07.05.2015, informing that he is relieving from the service, as he has not having required qualification for teaching Engineering courses and said relieving will be retrospective effect from the date he remained unauthorised absent for duty, since August 2014. Hence, the said order is valid one and, there is no any illegality in relieving him from
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19996 WP No. 14128 of 2021 HC-KAR service. They have contended that the appellant was removed from service by the implication of necessity. Hence, the enquiry is redundant and his termination is valid one, it is neither irregular or illegal. They have further contended that the 1"
respondent - Rajeev Educational Trust (R) has delegated the power to the Principal of Rajeev Institute of Technology (2nd respondent). Hence, said Principal has relieved him (appellant) from the service. Hence, it cannot be said that said Principal has no power to relieve him from service.
13. The appellant M.V. Ramesha examined as P.W.1. He admitted in the cross-examination that now M.Tech is compulsory for the post of lecturer.
"Even now he has not passed the M.Tech". It clearly shows that he is not having a qualification to teach the Engineering Classes as per qualification th required in 6 Pay Commission Report.
14. The appellant seeks for set aside the letter/order dated: 07.05.2015, which issued by the 2nd respondent removing him from the service i.e. from the post of lecturer.
Ex.P.13 is the letter dated: 07.05.2015, issued by the Principal of Rajeev Institute of Technology (2nd respondent). The contents of said letter is as follows:-
" Sub: Relieving from the post of Lecturer. Ref: Our office letter dated: 06.02.2015.
- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19996 WP No. 14128 of 2021 HC-KAR As already intimated in this office letter cited above, the minimum educational qualification required for the teaching faculty for under graduate Engineering courses is post graduation in the relevant field as per the norms and guidelines of AICTE & VTU.
Since you do not satisfy the above requirement, the college is constrained to relieve you from the post of Lecturer in the Civil Engineering Department of Rajeev Institute of Technology, Hassan. Relieving from your duty will be retrospective effect from the date you have remained absent for duty unauthorised since August 2014".
It is clear from the said letter /order that said college has decided to relieve the appellant from service, as he is not having required qualification as per the norms and guidelines of AICTE & VTU and his removing from service is effected from the date of unauthorised absent for duties since August 2014. In other words, the college decided to remove him from service for not having qualification as per the 6th Pay Commission Report.
15. The Ex.R.22 is the notification of Rules of AICTE Pay scales from 01.01.2006. Appendix -IV is the page No.24 of the said notification, wherein it is stated that B.E/B.Tech, and M.E./M.Tech,
- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19996 WP No. 14128 of 2021 HC-KAR qualification is necessary for working as Assistant Professor in Engineering/Technology programme.
It is clear from the letter dated: 07.05.2015 that the appellant was not removed from the service on the ground of unauthorised absent from 01.08.2014, but he removed from service for not having required qualification and said removal is effected from the date of his unauthorized absence since August 2014.
R.W.1 Dr.Rama Krishna, Principal of 2nd respondent Institution has deposed in the cross- examination that the appellant was absent from August 2014. He has denied that they relieved him from service by making false allegation that he was unauthorisedly absent to the college. Hence, it is clear that the appellant was absent from August 2014, and he was not removed /relieved from service on account of unauthorised absent.
16. As per Ex.P.13 letter dated: 07.05.2015, the 2nd respondent college has removed the appellant from the service. But it is no where stated as he removed /terminated/discharged from the service. Relieving of the appellant from the service is amounts to removal or terminate from the service even though no order passed as he removed, terminated or discharged from the service.
- 26 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19996 WP No. 14128 of 2021 HC-KAR (because, he can not do the work after removal). Section 92 of Karnataka Education Act, 1983, states as follows:-
Section 92. Dismissal, Removal, etc. (1) Subject to such rules as may be made in this behalf, no teacher or other employees of a private education institution shall be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank except.-
(a) in accordance with the conditions of service governing him;
(b) after an inquiry, in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of the said charges, and where it is proposed after such inquiry to impose on him such penalty, it may impose such penalty, on the basis of the evidence adduced during such inquiry:
Provided that this sub-section shall not apply to temporary employees or to the dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of a teacher or other employees on the ground of misconduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge involving moral turpitude.
- 27 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19996 WP No. 14128 of 2021 HC-KAR As I have already stated even though there is no order passed by the respondents, as he removed or terminated or dismissed from the service, he was removed from the service, since he relieved from the service as per letter dt; 07.05.2015, issued by the Principal of 2nd respondent Institute.
17. It is clearly stated in Sec.92(1) of the said Act that any teacher or other employee of a private educational institution shall not be dismissed or removed from the service without holding an enquiry in respect of the charges made against him and give a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of the said charges, and where it is proposed after such enquiry to impose on him such penalty, it may impose such penalty, on the basis of the evidence adduced during such enquiry.
In the case on hand the allegation against the appellant is that he has no required qualification i.e. B.E and M.Tech for teaching the B.E. classes as per the 6th Pay Commission Report and as per the norms and guidelines of AIECT and VTU. It is relevant to state that he was appointed in the year 2011 he was appointed as per the 5th Pay commission Report and as per the said report, the required qualification for teaching Engineering classes is B.E with first class. He had such qualification, and hence, the respondents appointed
- 28 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19996 WP No. 14128 of 2021 HC-KAR him as a lecturer and he served as a lecturer till 31.07.2014. If the enquiry is conducted, making allegations / charges against him as he is not possessing required qualification for teaching Engineering classes as per the norms and guidelines of AIECT/VTU and as per the 6th Pay Commissioner Report, he could have or not defending regarding his qualification for teaching the B.E.classes. But not conducted enquiry at all by the respondents. R.W.1-Rama Krishna has admitted in the cross examination that " no departmental enquiry was conducted by issuing show cause notice to the appellant as he is not having qualification and was unauthorized absent. It is clear that before relieving him from service as per letter dt: 07.05.2015 (Ex.P.13), no enquiry was conducted against the appellant. It is relevant to state that dismissal or removal or termination of the employee is a major punishment /penalty. As per Section 92(1) of the above said act, any teacher or employee cannot be dismissed or removed from the service without holding an enquiry, as stated in the said Section. In the case on hand without conducting any enquiry, relieved the appellant from service on 07.05.2015. Hence, the order dated: 07.05.2015 is illegal and bad in law.
18. The question of relieving any employee /officer from service is arises, if the order of dismissal/removal or termination made by the higher
- 29 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19996 WP No. 14128 of 2021 HC-KAR authority who is having power to remove the employee or officer. No any order passed by the respondents as he removed, terminated or dismissed from the service. When there is no such order, the question of relieving the appellant from the service does not arise. But in this case, relieved the appellant from service 07.05.2015, without any order of removal, discharge or terminated from service. Under this circumstance also said order is illegal and bad in law.
Before passing the order of removal, discharge or termination from the service, there must be an enquiry against the concerned officials. But in this case not at all conducted any enquiry as I have already stated. In other words, the respondents have not at all conducted any enquiry against the appellant and not passed any order as he removed, discharged or terminated from the service. Hence, the question of relieving him from service does not arise. Hence, the letter/order dated: 07.05.2015, relieving the appellant from the service, is illegal.
19. The appellant has contended that the Principal of 2nd respondent college has no power /authority to relieve him from service. Hence, the said relieving order is not valid under law. The respondent counsel has contended that the 1"
respondent trust had delegated the power to the
- 30 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19996 WP No. 14128 of 2021 HC-KAR Principal of Rajeev Institute of Technology (2nd respondent) to relieve him from service. Hence, the Principal of said institute had power to relieve the appellant from service. Hence, the letter/order dated: 07.05.2015 is valid one.
Ex.R.44 is the letter dated: 04.05.2015 written by the President of Rajeev Education Trust, Hassan (1" respondent) to the Principal of Rajeev Institute of Technology, Hassan (2nd respondent) and directed to issue the relieving notice to Ramesha M.V., as he has not turned up for duty in the Civil Engineering Department, RIT from 01.08.2014.
Ex.R.25 is the copy of Service Rules of Rajeev Institute of Technology (2nd respondent). There is a Clause No.18 with respect to resignation and Termination:
18. RESIGNATION & TERMINATION:
(a) Resignation:-
(i)xxx..........
(ii)......
(iii).....
(iv)....
(b) Termination:-
(i) The Management shall be competent to terminate the service of an employee in case of abolition
- 31 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19996 WP No. 14128 of 2021 HC-KAR of post/s due to closure of the institution or reduction in the number of section of class or discontinuance of a teaching subject by giving 3(three) months' notice in writing or by paying 3 months' salary in lieu thereof.
(ii) The Management shall also be competent to terminate the service of an employee who is incapacitated to discharge his/her officials duties by giving three months' notice or by paying 3 (Three) months' salary in lieu of the notice.
It is clear that the Management is the competent authority to terminate the service of an employee who is incapacitated to discharge his official duty. In the case on hand as per letter/Order dt: 07.05.2015, the appellant was relieved from service as he is not having required qualification for teaching Engineering Classes (BE) in view of the norms and guidelines of AIECT & VTU. Under these circumstances, the Management of the Institution has to terminate the appellant from service. But no any order of dismissal, removal or termination of the appellant passed by the Management, and the relieving order dt: 07.05.2015 is also not passed/issued by the Management. Under these circumstances also the letter/Order dt: 07.05.2015 is illegal.
- 32 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19996 WP No. 14128 of 2021 HC-KAR
20. As per Ex.R.44- letter dt: 04.05.2015, the President of Rejeev Education Trust (1" respondent) has directed the Principal of Rajeev Institute of Technology (2nd respondent) to issue relieving notice to Ramesha (the appellant) as he has not turned up for duty in the Civil Engineering Department, RIT from 01.08.2014. But it appears from Ex.P.13; letter/Order dated: 07.05.2015, that appellant Ramesha was not relieved as he was absent to the institution from 01.08.2014, but he removed from the service as he is not having required qualification for teaching Engineering classes. In other words, the President of the Rajeev Educational Trust(1" respondent) has directed the Principal of Rajeev Institute of Technology (2nd respondent), for relieving the appellant for one reason (i.e. absence), but the 2nd respondent had relieved him for another reason (i.e not having required qualification). In other words, the order of respondent No.1 and 2 are contrary to each other. Under these circumstances, the order dated:
07.05.2015 is not valid order.
Viewed from any angle, the order dated:
07.05.2015, removing the appellant from service is illegal. The appellant has proved that his removal from service by the Principal of 2nd respondent Institution as per letter/order dated: 07.05.2015, is
- 33 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19996 WP No. 14128 of 2021 HC-KAR illegal. Hence, I answer the point No.1 in the "Affirmative".
Point No.2:-
21. The letter/order dated: 07.05.2015 issued/ passed by the Principal of 2nd respondent Institution is illegal and bad in law. Hence, it is liable for set aside.
The appellant prays to direct the respondents to re-instate him to the post of lecturer in the Department of Civil Engineering and to pay salary from 01.08.2014 with continuity of service and all consequential benefit. As I have already stated the order dated: 07.05.2015 passed by the 2nd respondent institution is illegal. Hence, it is just and necessary to re-instate the appellant in the earlier post. He is entitled for back wages, since the order dated: 07.05.2015 is illegal. In other words, the appellant is entitled to re-instate to the post of lecturer in the Department of Civil Engineering and entitled for back wages. Hence, I answer the point No.2 in "Affirmative".
22. As per the 6th Pay Commission Report and as per norms and guideline of A.I.C.T.E & V.T.U, the required qualification for teaching Engineering Classes (B.E.) is B.E and M.E./ M.Tech. Admittedly even now the appellant has not
- 34 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19996 WP No. 14128 of 2021 HC-KAR passed M.E or M.Tech. Hence, at present he has no required qualification for teaching B.E. classes. Apart that he was absent for duties from 01.08.2014 till relieved him from service. Under these circumstances, I hold that respondents are at liberty to take action in accordance with law against the appellant with respect to his educational qualification for teaching engineering classes and his absence from 01.08.2014 till the date of relieved from service.
Point No.3: -
23. In view of my findings on point No.1 and 2, I pass the following: -
:ORDER:
The appeal is allowed with costs.
The letter /Order dated: 07.05.2015 issued by the 2nd respondent removing the appellant from service from the post of Lecturer is set aside.
The respondents are directed to re-instate the appellant to his earlier post with back wages.
The respondents are at liberty to take action in accordance with law against the appellant, with regard to his educational qualification for teaching Engineering classes in view of 6th Pay Commission Report and norms and guidelines of A.I.C.T.E &
- 35 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19996 WP No. 14128 of 2021 HC-KAR V.T.U, and his absence from 01.08.2014 till the date of relieved him from service.
8. As can be seen from the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, the EAT has correctly and properly considered and appreciated the entire material on record and has come to the correct conclusion that while on one hand the respondent was entitled to be reinstated by setting aside the order of removal, the Tribunal also took into account that the contention of the petitioners ought to be reserved liberty to take action against the respondent in accordance with law as regards his educational qualification for teaching engineering classes in view of 6 th pay commission report as well as norms and guidelines of the AICTE and VTU and his absence from 01.08.2014, till the date of him being relieved from service.
9. Upon reconsideration, re-appreciation and re-
evaluation of the entire material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal cannot be set to suffer from any illegality or infirmity nor can the same be set to be capricious or perverse or opposed to facts or law thereby occasioning failure of justice and warranting interference by this
- 36 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19996 WP No. 14128 of 2021 HC-KAR Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
10. Under these circumstances, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is thereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE BH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2