Karnataka High Court
Nitk English Medium High School Trust ... vs Mrs. Violet Mascarenhas on 15 March, 2013
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, Ravi Malimath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2013
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.L.MANJUNATH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
WRIT APPEAL NO.3872 OF 2012(S-RES)
C/W
WA.CROSS OBJECTION NO.1 OF 2013
WA.NO.3872/2012:
BETWEEN:
NITK English Medium High School
Trust (Regd.)
NITK Campus, Srinivasanagar,
Surathkal - 575 025
Dakshina Kannada District
Represented by its Secretary. ...APPELLANT
(By Sri Nataraju Ballal, Advocate for
M/s.Acara Law Chambers, Advocates)
AND:
1. Mrs.Violet Mascarenhas
2
Aged about 55 years
Headmistress/Principal NITK English
Medium High School Srinivasanagar
Surathkal - 575 025, D.K.
W/o Mr.Willaim Mascarenhas
R/at Banito Manor
Surathkal-Bajpe Road,
Surathkal - 575 014
D.K.District.
2. The President
NITK English Medium
School Trust,
NITK Campus,
Srinivasanagar,
Surathkal - 575 025
D.K.District.
3. The Correspondent
NITK English Medium
School Trust,
NITK Campus,
Srinivasanagar,
Surathkal - 575 025
D.K.District.
4. Dr.Sandeep Sancheti
Director,
NITK School Trust,
Surathkal - 585 025.
5. The National Institute of Technology
Karnataka Srinivasanagar
Surathkal - 575 025
D.K.District
Represented by its Director.
3
6. Sri Sunil Kumar
Principal
NITK English Medium High
School, NITK Campus,
Srinivasanagar,
Surathkal-575 025
D.K.District. ...RESPONDENTS
(R2-R6 deleted as per order dated 29.01.2013)
(By Sri K.Subba Rao, Sr.Counsel & Sri M.Narayana
Bhat, Advocate for R1)
*****
This Writ Appeal filed under Section 4 of the
Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order
passed in the Writ Petition No.6122/2012(S-DE) C/w
WP.No.43001/2011(S-RES) dated 22.06.2012.
WA.CROB.NO.1/2013:
BETWEEN:
Mrs.Violet Mascarenhas
Aged about 56 years
Headmistress/Principal NITK English
Medium High School Srinivasanagar
Surathkal - 575 025, D.K.
W/o Mr.Willaim Mascarenhas
R/at Banito Manor
Surathkal-Bajpe Road,
Surathkal - 575 014. ...CROSS OBJECTOR
(By M/s.Subba Rao & Co., Advocates)
4
AND:
NITK English Medium High School
Trust (Regd.)
NITK Campus, Srinivasanagar,
Surathkal - 575 025
Dakshina Kannada District
Represented by its Secretary ...RESPONDENT
*****
This WA.Crob filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of
Code of Civil Procedure praying to allow this Cross
objection and grant all the reliefs prayed in
W.P.No.43001/2011.
This Writ Appeal c/w WA.Crob coming on for
preliminary hearing this day, K.L.Manjunath J.,
delivered the following:-
JUDGMENT
The legality and correctness of the order dated 22.06.2012, passed in W.P.No.6122/2012 connected with W.P. No.43001/2011, is questioned in this appeal.
2. Heard the counsel for the parties. 5
3. The writ petitioner, Mrs.Violet Mascarenhas was working as a teacher of the school run by the appellant from 01.06.1986. She was promoted as Headmistress from 25.05.2001. The post of the Headmistress was confirmed w.e.f. 19.07.2002. Later the Management converted the curriculum from State syllabus to CBSE syllabus. On account of the same, the post of the writ petitioner was redesignated as Principal of the school and she was working as the Principal of the School.
4. Pursuant to a resolution dated 09.07.2011, the management intended to hold disciplinary proceedings on account of certain administrative lapses on the part of the writ petitioner. Based on the same, she was relieved from the duties of the Principal. Challenging the relieving order, the writ petitioner filed an appeal before the Education Appellate Tribunal, 6 which appeal came to be dismissed as not maintainable. Therefore, she filed a writ petition.
5. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties has allowed the writ petition directing the management to reinstate her as the Principal of the respondent-school and to complete the enquiry proceedings in accordance with law. This order is called in question in this appeal.
6. Having heard the counsel for the parties, what we observed in the present case is that the right of the management to conduct the disciplinary proceedings against its employee by issuing notice can be questioned by her by filing a writ petition. But her grievance before the Court is that she has been relieved from the duties and in her place some other person has been appointed.
7
7. We have considered the order passed by the management. In the order it is stated that the writ petitioner has been relieved from the duties pending enquiry, which is nothing but keeping her under suspension. But strangely in the instant case, instead of keeping her under suspension, she has been relived from the post of Principal / Headmistress and she has been allowed to work as a teacher till the enquiry is under progress which is unheard of, as it amounts to demoting a person from higher cadre to lower cadre. It is also submitted that the enquiry has also already been completed.
8. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that a Principal has been appointed for a temporary period, since the appellant was relieved from her duties. Therefore, we are of the view that the order relieving the petitioner from the post of 8 Headmistress / Principal is not appropriate and incorrect, when the enquiry is under completion.
9. Therefore, we are of the view that if a direction is issued to the appellant to complete the enquiry and pass an appropriate order and if the respondent / writ petitioner is exonerated from the charges she is entitled for reinstatement to the post of Headmistress / Principal. In the meanwhile, if any person has been appointed as Headmistress / Principal, the said appointment shall be subject to the result of enquiry.
10. We made it very clear that if the respondent / writ petitioner has been allowed to work as teacher instead of keeping her in suspension. In the circumstance if ultimately charges leveled against her is exonerated, she is entitled for all other benefits. 9
11. With the above modification this appeal is disposed off.
In view of the order passed in writ appeal No.3872/2012, the Cross Objection No.1/2013 is also disposed off.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE JJ