C K Ananda Kumar, M.Sc. vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 December, 2010

[Cites 1, Cited by 30]

Karnataka High Court

C K Ananda Kumar, M.Sc. vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 December, 2010

Bench: A.S.Bopanna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 

BEFORE _ .A_
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE A. S. SOMPAI~INA.'_C;. 

WRIT PETITION No. 29918 {I-VS"'-I_'1'«{'<)):_': '--  _ 

BETWEEN:

SR1 C. K. ANANDA KUMAR, M.SC.

S/O. SRI C. K. RAMAN

AGE: 59 YEARS  _  _  
RETIRED SELECTION ORADE'~I,Ec.'TURI:R  

NO. 402, SW CROSS, 6"mMA1N  *  _   '
M. O. E. F. LAYOUT, NAGARABAV1 I

BANGALORE M 560()_'1'2._  "  O' '...PET1'I'IONER

[BY SR}. RAJANI4I£I3NT§?KULI€ARZ\1}i_& __ jj . 1'  
SR1 BASAVARAJ. M:  _AD._\/fS.}  

AND:  ««««  .. 

I. THE S"I?AT;«:'O§"' K:AfRNATAKA--«
BY ITS PRINCIPAL 
HR. EDUCATION, EDUACATION DEPARTMENT
V FLOOR,  S." BUILDINGS'
BANGALORE --:5..S0'001

 :5;  COONIMISSIONEROIIOR COLLEGIATE EDUCATION

' EDI,}CAT1'ON..DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

  P.AIACEfROAD,__SANOALORE M 560001

3. OI\zIA:>.IAOc§Ia;I\}II~:NT OF RANEBENNUR
TALUK --I:DUCA'I'1ON SOCIETY ®

7 REP. BYITS PRESIDENT

V .R..T.E.S'."'AR'I'S, SCIENCE AND

" COMMERCE COLLEGE CAMPUS

O' VRANIIBENNUR -- 581115  RESPONDENIS

  ..{1BY_§SRI RAGHAVENDRA GAYATPIRI, GP FOR R1 8: R2

 SR1 C. H. JADHAV, ADV. FOR R3}

i

qr:



3. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was

eiigible to be promoted as Principal in the

respondent, institution, as per the guidelines

02.08.1995 indicated in the circular dated 1/iij9ia8ii'ie't ' issued by the Government of Karnataka .as",per It is in that context, the petitionerohadxz relief and had approached respond'ent the petition under Sec.' 133 of: the nidiardiiatakad Education Act, 1983. Since the not been appropriately order dated 17/4/2o0i'1"iiniitit.re.p§§te.iisréez/oti1iiii(s--aas), had directed the 15: resporident.VVh'efrei'n*~totconsider and dispose of the petition -Within" period."-oft months. Subsequent there 'ta, t:h'e {.1sfrespendeindtdddhas disposed of the petition filed the"Vpetitioner,iherein. Though certain observations which.are___vben.eiicia1 to the petitioner have been made in " epordergthe "ultimate result is that the petition filed by 'th'eA_pe-titioner has been dismissed. «ii:

VII4VV1

4. In the background of the contention putforth by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that he was the senior most lecturer during March 1998 and was therefore eligible to be promoted to the post Principal as indicated in Clause (vi) of the-goVern'i'nei'i.tT' i.

order dated 2 / 8 / 1995, the same_has_bee_n"by_ 0" V the 15' respondent. A further"-pperusalhogf' impugned in this petition'll\Jsioi1V_ld indicate 15:-_~_' respondent has taken note----oi"v--thegA fact"--th.at..:§ one Sri Sannabornmaji had asevl:l_in:¥Charge Principal and ejienllltlioittghlproposalliztiaslputforth for appointing him rejected on 7/ 3 / 2000, no fresh. proposal was inaéie by the Management. In this 13* respondent has also noticed that even petitioner was entitled to be appointed as in the absence of proposal, appointment coguldziiot be made which indicated that the lapse of the 0' =.man'agen1ent had prejudiced the petitioner. Despite

-~-COII1lI1g to the said conclusion, 1*?' respondent. on i;

t5"

noticing that as on the date of passing of order by the 181 respondent, petitioner had attained the age of superannuation, has thought it fit that no could be issued to the 3rd respondent, ManAagen::i:ent';~ ' appoint the petitioner as Prineipa_.1r

5. In my view, by the respondent in fact has Come'.t_o~a prinia faeie eoneiusion V that the petitioner was entitIed.'Vp_to'uth_e reiiea but could not be granted only beeaiiseihmtained the age of superannuation, in dciijteunistances, the 154 respondent heard the 3rd respondent and come to a"e_o13e1us_ion whether the right which had ace1*tieVdi'~to thne"i-ptetitiponer had been unjustiy denied to ___After recording a ﬁnding on that aspect iofpthe the 15' respondent had Come to the eoneitisiionvdithat the right of the petitioner had been denied though he was iegaliy entitied to, i petitioner would have been entitled to the monetary £2 -5- benefits, which he would have earned if, in fact, h-e__ had been appointed as the Principal when the.A..r'i§_§ht"o:'--had accrued to him. Hence this aspect requires re--considerat1'on by the""'I>*3i.respondent, "a=fte'r providing opportunity to the res'.poAn'dventn.urﬂn'--.. consideration, if the 15' 'r,é"sp0nd€n.t'vairrixfesat a Conclusion that the 'right to the petitioner was _.~'.:1_:Vs»:'ivii}-respondent shall issue an apprepri'ate respondent to pay the be determined by the with law.

6. °H_ei1eeVr the I" respondent to re--do the rpatter invnitfrevrnariner stated above, the order dated 216/2 /'?,§)O3,.ev'iinpugned in this petition, stands quashed. 1\5/Latter st-arji_d,§uremitted to the 18' respondent to restore petit'ion'7i\Eo; 47/2000 on file. Issue notice to the 3*"

it 'Xfrespondent herein and after hearing the petitioner as é weli as the 3%' respondent, come to a conclusion i-:1, accordance with law.

In terms of the above, the petition stands.dis.:§foséti:: . of.

No order as to costs.

Rc'af--

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court