T Narasamma vs The Devaraj Urs Vidya Samsthe on 20 October, 2010

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

T Narasamma vs The Devaraj Urs Vidya Samsthe on 20 October, 2010

Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy

_ 1 _
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF OCTOBER 2010
BEFORE  T

THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE RAM M0H_z,xi%1  4
"HuTPEnTm»:N0.6094[20O {S:RE§ﬂ,L"~  "u

  _   . 
MISC. W. No. 5289/2010 A * V %
1NW.P.NO. 6094;f~~2009"{S--RES)}  

_El_E_T__W_E1lT;

T. Narasamma ._ -.
D/0. 'I'ippaiah.  V  V

AgedVVabo1_i"t ' "

Assistant '1'e"a_.ch6?r_  ._ _ --

Bethixr Channaibasappgf "

siddappa'High.er  "School

Anekondap ._  " 

Dafwcnagere Taluk 81' District

 '   %%%%%  ...PETITIONER
 M5"i:'} [G

 L'  S'ri M_§ Hirernath & Shivananda D. S., Advs.]

1. 'I'h e':":Devara}' Urs Vidya Samsthe (Regci)

 'A  Befhur Road, Anekonda

V. _ Davarlagere

Lkk



  '(s_\}'  Mundargi, AGA for R2 to R5}

4
[Q
1

By its Secretary
Srnt. B. P. Saroja

2. The Block Education Officer
Davanagere Taluk 8: District

3. The Deputy Director of Public  V 
Davanagere District    * .. 

4. The Director of Primary Education
Office of the C.P.I. ' -  V'
Nrupathunga Road
Bangalore

5. The Secretary .. _ --_  ;
Department of Education'  _
Government of Karriataka  V
M.S.Bui1di;';gI" _ "  "
Bangalcreéé ?Ij_ '

6. S1f'i"D1riari:i.anje}}g'a Rergldy '
Assis.tant *1*ea¢11er« _ it ' 
Aged: Major     
Ujjairai Jagadguru Higher Primary School
;I._C.R. Extension', Jagalur
, (Zhitradurga. District
 " T. .  """   RESPONDENTS

Gt} 3"\J'*C*2\3 is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Corzstitution of India praying to quash the order dt. DDV25/'ION/2008 issued by the R5, as per Annex.M, and bé consequential order dt. 18/ 8/ 2007, passed by the R2, as per Annex.L and order dt. 30/ 7/ 2007, passedby the R3, as per Annex.J by issue of writ in the certiorari or any other writ or directions asthe be and etc. This Misc.W. application filed to R4 to release the salary grant on"parV-with.hier:coi1eagues'~op as per the orders produced"at:V'*Annex;G_1"&:":G2;; These W.P. and_'Misc.i_:W, ciorryiing on for hearing on LA. this day, the Court rriaae vtfoiiouring:

is listed for orders, with the coIise1it'o_fVtheVV1earned'".Counsei for the parties, is finally and by this order.

petitioner, an Assistant Teacher in Bethur H Siddappa Higher Primary School, Anekohda" in Davanagere Taluk 8: District, an aided iinstitution was appointed during the academic year M 1991-92, whence the institution having recommended the appointment for approval and admission vto'..:grant-- in~aid, the Department of Education 2/ 7/ 1991, approved the appointment imposed, amongst others, ti'iat__ 'the petitioner must completelier te'achcr~trainingpppcourse' within 2 years. It is assert_ed_- similarly circumstanced _V Sri Anjaneya Kannada H§gh_er Bhashanagar.

approved without aid i992, AnneX.G1, and measterwaigipgirr it 31/ 10/2004, Annex.G2. were adniiitte"dit.o-- gr'ant~:--in~aid. It is the allegation of the ppa.1:.itio'nrer- ipthattttheiapproval of the appointment of her Department of Education was not with the con=d_it'ion of having to complete a teachers training xcpourisetwithin 2 years and hence the petitioner was it iscriminated, in Violation of Art.i4 of the Constitution ﬁisi of India. it is further alleged that though her employer submitted proposals and recommendations for admission of salary grant to the petitioner onrparwith other similarly placed teachers, the Education Department by letter d't'."= AnneX.J, rejected the rec'on1men'datio'11::~-r ias communicated by letter"l¥mnex.l;'.v- order --5whent"

carried in appeal before thye..Vf)irec.tor, .resp_on_dent No.4, was conﬁrmed ' .. appeal as communicatedgin theillletter /V10/2u008, AnneX.M. ._ « ggislliopposed by filing statement of objections dt. 6/ respondents 2 to 5, interalia admitting the similarly circumstanced teachers i€,l"=S_avitri Devi, B. C. Ravi, C. Yellamma, "Re'Janasidadgappa, Shivanandappa, Basavarajappa, etc., llrvdifferent schools, were admitted to salary grant. It is also. untrained teachers, in different managements in Lin stated that the empioyer of the petitioner had submitted a proposai only on 2/9/2005 to admit the petitioner to salary grant, by which time the Karnataka"Ed_1i.cai:_ion_ Act, 1988, had come into force, petitione:i=..h'aying riotw. possessed the prescribed qualiificai-tiori -appoi;::m¢;~Lt as a primary school teacher_, was. disentitled..,to salaryiir grant. V A H

4. The petition'er2'h.as uan':afﬁ--d_avit cit. 6/ 10/ 10 undertaking to" in the event directions «--are_ ed "salary grant. to the admitted fact that teachers9..sVim.ilariy':'p1ac.ed as the petitioner. in primary sVe_':i'too1__2A' Whose""a.ppointment during the year 1991-92 ' ylwere without grant and without the conditions .'to""iunder5go.5' teachers training course within 2 years. whenvno prescription of qualification for appointment to I .t:he_«said post was avaiiabie, the approval of appointment Lri of the petitioner without aid, subject to undergoing teacher training course within 2 years, there is'~_n<iore doubt in my mind, that the irnposition_"":of' condition tantamounts to discriminationduvndeif 4- * in the Constitution of India.

6. Petitioner's ernpioyer having repeated requests by to the Education Dep.artmen*- .the[.p'etitioner's claim for respondent --

authoritya the claim as had beenildoneAintrespeet' the petitioners colleagues in the order them to salary grant during thejear 2004;..ﬂA1th.ough learned Government Counsel ,' __AnneX.G2 is not dated, but nevertheless u petitioner's colleagues were admitted to ésalavryhvgxrant in the year 1992 and 1994itse1f. If that it ~ so, then it was all the more reason for the respondent M is disentitled to backwages, but entitled to fixation of salary, increments and benefits for pension only. Petition is ordered accordingly. Comp1.ianc:¢ ' 6 months.

1VIisc.W. S§.8?.'."i'97 is rejected as u1Lnve€;-es's.;aI*y»,. in View of disposal of the Writ Petitiony. Judge 'A3 - -.:m.:.u:-_<;-.~_->.::.:';:.<.=:ar.*:".2;~.'i=:ywgxgW -ms:

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court