Karnataka High Court
Sadashiva Mahantappa Chalawadi vs State Of Karnataka on 23 April, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 39880 OF 2012 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SADASHIVA MAHANTAPPA CHALAWADI
S/O MAHANTAPPA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER (ARTS)
SRI JAGARDURU RUDRA MUNISHWARA
RESIDENTIAL HIGH SCHOOL
RAMBHAPURI PEETHA, BALEHONNUR
N.R. PURA TALUKE
CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT.
....PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SUBRAMANYA BHAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
M.S.BUILDING
BANGALORE-560 001
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY.
2. THE COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
NEW PUBLIC OFFICERS
2
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001.
3. THE DIRECTOR (SECONDARY EDUCATION)
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001.
4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
CHIKMAGALUR-577 101.
5. SRI JAGADGURU RENUKACHARYA
SHIKSHANA PRATISHTANA
RAMBHAPURI PEETHA
BALEHONNUR, N.R.PURA TALUKE
CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY THE
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER-577 101.
6. SRI JAGADGURU RUDRAMUNISHWARA
VASATHI PROUDHA SHALE
RAMBHAPURI PEETA, BALEHONNUR
N R PURA TALUKE
CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY
THE HEAD MASTER-577 101.
7. SRI S M RAMESH
S/O MANJAPPA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER (ENGLISH)
SRI JAGARDURU RUDRA MUNISHWARA
RESIDENTIAL HIGH SCHOOL
RAMBHAPURI PEETHA
3
BALEHONNUR
N R PURA TALUKE
CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 101.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHIVA REDDY, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. VISHWANATH HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR
R5 AND R6;
SRI. K. SATHISH, ADVOCATE FOR R7)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 21.5.12, ISSUED BY
THE R1 MARKED AT ANN-K & THE IMPUGNED
ENDORSEMENT DATED 21.9.12, ISSUED BY THE R4,
MARKED AT ANN-P, AS THE SAME ARE ARBITRARY,
ILLEGAL & IRRATIONAL & VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14, 16,
19 & 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 18.04.2024, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
4
ORDER
The captioned petition is filed assailing the approval of appointment of respondent No.7 to the post of Arts teacher in respondent No.6-Institution and consequent endorsement intimating that appointment of petitioner to the post of English teacher cannot be approved for want of qualification.
2. The facts leading to the case are as under:
Respondent No.6-Institution, a private unaided institution comprising seven teaching staff approached respondent No.1/State to admit the school for grant-
in-aid. Respondent No.7 was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 3.12.1999 and was teaching English subject. The appointment of Respondent No.7 was approved by respondent No.4/Deputy Director of Public Instructions for the post of English subject without grant-in-aid.5
3. Respondent No.1/State in response to the proposal sent by respondent No.6/institution called upon the institution to follow the reservation roster and submit a request for grant. In response to the State's directives, respondent No.6/Institution invited applications to the posts of Assistant Teacher in Arts and English respectively. Petitioner being a bachelor of degree holder in Arts with B.Ed. applied to the post. Petitioner was selected and the school management committee appointed the petitioner to the post of Assistant Teacher, Arts on 25.11.2008. Order of appointment was issued on 12.12.2008 and petitioner reported to duty on 15.12.2008. A three member committee comprising of Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, Deputy Director of Public Instructions(Member Secretary) and Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Panchayath, Chickmagalur(Chairman) approved petitioner's appointment.
6
4. Respondent No.4/Deputy Director of Public Instructions approved petitioner's appointment without grant-in-aid. One Gangadharaiah who was teaching Arts in respondent No.6/Institution was relieved in view of petitioner's appointment. In terms of the directions issued by respondent No.1/State, since English subject was reserved for Scheduled Tribe, respondent No.7 was also relieved.
5. Respondent No.7 feeling aggrieved by the relieving order passed by respondent No.6 Institution preferred a writ petition in W.P.16408/2008. This Court having heard respondent No.7 and respondents- Authorities issued direction to consider the case of respondent No.7 for the post of Assistant Teacher in English subject. This Court held that the post of Arts teacher and English being a single post, reservation roster cannot be applied. Since there was inaction on 7 the part of the authorities, respondent No.7 initiated contempt proceedings. The respondent-Authorities to avoid contempt proceedings, in a haste, to comply this Court's directives recommended to admit respondent No.7 to grant-in-aid to the post of Assistant Teacher Arts. Consequently, petitioner's appointment was cancelled.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA appearing for Respondents 1 to 4, learned counsel appearing for respondents 5 and 6 and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.7. The counsel appearing for petitioner and counsel appearing for private respondent No.7 have addressed their arguments exhaustively reiterating the grounds raised in the writ petition and in the statement of objections.
8
7. Before I advert to the case on hand, I deem it fit to take cognizance of the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.16408/2008. Paras 5 and 6 are relevant and the same are extracted as under:
"5. In the light of the aforesaid submission put forward and the post of Arts Teacher in English held by the petitioner being meant only for G.M., question of reservation does not come into picture as it is only one post in respect of which the petitioner was appointed initially. Even as per the standard staffing pattern under the Education Act, there is only one post for English language.
6. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and Respondents 2 and 3 are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for approval on the application for approval being sent by the 5th respondent for acceptance. In the meanwhile, Respondents 1 to 3 are also directed to consider the application filed by the 5th respondent for grant as well, in accordance with the Grant-in-aid Rules. Consequently, Annexure-"J" which is impugned in this writ petition is quashed. Three months' time granted to the respondent
- Government to comply with the aforesaid directions."
8. On meticulous examination of the records and submissions made by the parties involved, this 9 Court discerns that crux of the dispute lies in the directives issued in response to the proposal for admitting respondent No.6-Institution to grant-in-aid. It is manifest from the records that petitioner possessing requisite qualifications underwent a legitimate recruitment process. The petitioner's appointment was duly sanctioned by a three member Committee and subsequently, approved by Deputy Director of Public Instructions.
9. The proceedings before this Court shed light on a haste decision by respondent-authorities motivated by a desire to avoid contempt proceedings. This hasty action led to a misinterpretation of the directives issued by this Court in W.P.16408/2008, resulting in unjust accommodation of respondent No.7 at the expense of petitioner's legitimate appointment. 10
10. Respondent No.1/State instead of adhering to the directions issued by this Court has misinterpreted the scope of the Court's order and has erroneously admitted respondent No.7 to grant-in-aid thus displacing petitioner from rightful position. Notably, the appointment of respondent No.7 and the order of relieving was not contingent upon petitioner's appointment and it is pertinent to mention that another individual Gangadhar who was teaching Arts subject in respondent No.6/Institution was in fact relieved on account of petitioner's appointment. Respondent No.7 was relieved on the premise that English subject is reserved for Scheduled Tribe.
11. Therefore, it is clearly evident from the culled out paragraphs of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.16408/2008 that this Court's directive did not warrant the displacement of petitioner nor did it explicitly mandate admission of respondent No.7 to 11 grant-in-aid for Arts subject. Therefore, the action of respondent No.1 driven by misinterpretation of this Court's directives has led to an unjust outcome.
12. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for respondent No.7, respondent No.7 was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in 1999 and is teaching English subject. Though respondent No.7 possesses qualification of Bachelor of Arts with B.Ed., respondent No.6 has engaged Respondent No.7 to teach English subject since the date of appointment. In fact, the appointment of respondent No.7 by respondent No.6/Institution is approved by Deputy Director of Public Instructions to the post of English subject.
13. Respondent No.1/State pursuant to the directions issued by this Court has encountered complications and these complications are purely on 12 account of erroneous administrative decisions taken by the authorities.
14. The Court acknowledges the ongoing predicament faced by petitioner who despite an interim order granted by this Court was not allowed to resume duty at respondent No.6-Institution. It was only on account of indulgence granted by this Court, salary was paid, which is evident from the records. This Court has also taken cognizance of the fact that respondent No.7 is nearing retirement within two years. The fault for this unfortunate circumstance lies squarely with the authorities who mishandled the issue at hand. Petitioner was appointed as a Arts teacher, which was approved by three member committee and respondent No.3, while respondent No.7 though possesses qualification of Bachelor of Arts with B.Ed., was appointed as a Assistant Teacher, was teaching English all along. His appointment was 13 approved by respondent No.3 for English subject without grant-in-aid. It is manifest from the facts presented that the petitioner, possessing the requisite qualifications, underwent a legitimate recruitment process. The petitioner's appointment was duly sanctioned by a three-member committee and subsequently approved by the Deputy Director of Public Instructions. Conversely, the seventh respondent's appointment for the English subject, despite lacking requisite qualification, was endorsed by the same authority in 1999.
15. The impugned endorsement issued by respondent No.4 indicating that petitioner is not qualified to be appointed as an English teacher suffers from serious infirmities. This endorsement is issued only to accommodate respondent No.7, who was initially appointed as a English teacher. Though this Court directed the authorities to admit respondent 14 No.7 to grant-in-aid to the post of teacher in English subject, the authorities obviously encountered difficulties as respondent No.7 is also not qualified for the post of teacher in English subject as he also possesses a Bachelor Degree in Arts with B.Ed. Having admitted respondent No.7 to grant-in-aid, the impugned endorsement vide Annexure-P is issued indicating that petitioner does not possess qualification to be admitted to grant-in-aid to the post of Assistant Teacher in English subject.
16. It is relevant to note that petitioner was never appointed to the post of teacher in English subject. This Court's directive did not warrant petitioner's displacement nor did it explicitly mandate admission of respondent No.7 to grant-in-aid for Arts subject. Should petitioner be granted relief and reinstated to his original position, respondent No.7 who is on the verge of retirement may face prejudice. 15 Conversely, denying relief to the petitioner would result in the loss of employment despite being appointed through a proper recruitment process. Such a denial would constitute a gross injustice.
17. In light of these facts, this court finds that the actions of respondents were precipitous and in violation of the principles of justice. It is imperative that the directives of this Court be interpreted accurately and implemented in a manner that upholds the rights of all parties involved. In order to address the equities at stake, it is imperative for the authorities to be held accountable for the present state of affairs. Appropriate direction needs to be issued in this regard. Respondent No.7 should be treated as an excess staff without relieving him of his duties. Consequently, petitioner deserves to be reinstated to his rightful position.
16
18. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order bearing No.ED71.LBP:2012 dated 21.05.2012 issued by respondent No.1 as per Annexure-"K" and the impugned endorsement issued by respondent No.4 bearing No. SA.SHI.KHA/PRA.NE.A/No.235/2008-09 dated 21.9.2012 as per Annexure-"P" are hereby quashed.
(iii) The appointment of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Teacher, Arts subject in respondent No.6/Institution shall be restored and admitted to grant-in-aid with all consequential benefits.
(iv) Respondent No.7 shall be treated as an excess staff and shall be permitted to 17 discharge his duties without any prejudice until his scheduled superannuation.
(v) The respondents/authorities shall ensure and rectify the administrative errors and ensure strict compliance of the directions issued by this Court supra without unjustly displacing respondent No.7.
Sd/-
JUDGE *alb/-