Karnataka High Court
Sri L B Nataraj vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 April, 2014
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
Bench: A.N. Venugopala Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NOS.4351-4402/2014 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI L B NATARAJ
S/O BORAIAH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
WORKING AS LECTURER
S.J.M. P.U. COLLEGE,
CHIKKAJAJUR, HOLALKERE TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
2. SRI BALASHANKAR B., S/O BANGARAPPA B.,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
WORKING AS LECTURER IN ENGLISH
S.J.M. P.U. COLLEGE
CHIKKAJAJUR, HOLALKERE TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
3. SRI R. MANJUNATHASWAMY
S/O VENKATARAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
WORKING AS LECTURER
S.J.M. P.U. COLLEGE, CHIKKAJAJUR,
HOLALKERE TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
4. SRI RAMESHAPPA S.,
S/O SANNA NINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
WORKING AS LECTURER IN POLITICAL SCIENCE
S.J.M. P.U. COLLEGE, CHIKKAJAJUR,
HOLALKERE TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
2
5. SRI PRAKASHA K.T.,
S/O THIMMAPPA K
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
WORKING AS LECTURER IN SOCIOLOGY
S.J.M. P.U. COLLEGE, CHIKKAJAJUR,
HOLALKERE TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
6. SRI NISAR AHAMED, S/O TAJPEER N.,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
WORKING AS LECTURER IN MATHEMATICS
S.J.M. P.U. COLLEGE, CHIKKAJAJUR,
HOLALKERE TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
7. SRI THIPPESH B.S., S/O SIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
WORKING AS LECTURER IN CHEMISTRY
S.J.M. P.U. COLLEGE, CHIKKAJAJUR,
HOLALKERE TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
8. SRI SIDDARAMAPPA K.C.,
S/O CHANNABASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
WORKING AS PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER
S.J.M. P.U. COLLEGE, CHIKKAJAJUR,
HOLALKERE TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
9. SRI PALAKSHA K., S/O ALWAR KENCHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
WORKING AS ATTENDER
S.J.M. P.U. COLLEGE, CHIKKAJAJUR,
HOLALKERE TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
10. SRI G.K. SHANTHAVEERAIAH
S/O KARISIDDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
WORKING AS LAB ATTENDER
S.J.M. P.U. COLLEGE, CHIKKAJAJUR,
HOLALKERE TALUK
3
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
11. SRI SHIVANNA R., S/O RANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
WORKING AS ATTENDER
S.J.M. P.U. COLLEGE, CHIKKAJAJUR,
HOLALKERE TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
12. SRI LAKSHMANA N.,
S/O PAILWAN NINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
WORKING AS WATCHMAN
S.J.M. P.U. COLLEGE, CHIKKAJAJUR,
HOLALKERE TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
13. SRI NANJE GOWDA A., S/O ANJINAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
WORKING AS LECTURER
S.J.B.C. JUNIOR COLLEGE,
ATTIBELE, ANEKAL TALUK -562107
BANGALORE DISTRICT.
14. SRI THIPPAIAH G.,
S/O LATE VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
WORKING AS LECTURER
S.J.B.C. JUNIOR COLLEGE
ATTIBELE, ANEKAL TALUK -562107
BANGALORE DISTRICT.
15. SMT. CHANDRAKALAVATHI B.A.,
W/O VENKATACHALAPATHI
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
WORKING AS LECTURER
S.J.B.C. JUNIOR COLLEGE,
ATTIBELE, ANEKAL TALUK -562107
BANGALORE DISTRICT.
16. SRI SATHISHA S., S/O A. SRINIVASAN
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
WORKING AS SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT
4
S.J.B.C. JUNIOR COLLEGE,
ATTIBELE, ANEKAL TALUK -562107
BANGALORE DISTRICT.
17. SRI SATHEESHA N., S/O NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
WORKING AS ATTENDER
S.J.B.C. JUNIOR COLLEGE,
ATTIBELE, ANEKAL TALUK -562107
BANGALORE DISTRICT.
18. SRI CHIKKANARASAIAH, S/O DASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
WORKING AS PEON
S.J.B.C. JUNIOR COLLEGE,
ATTIBELE, ANEKAL TALUK -562107
BANGALORE DISTRICT.
19. SRI ANANDA REDDY, S/O BAYANNA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
WORKING AS PEON
S.J.B.C. JUNIOR COLLEGE,
ATTIBELE, ANEKAL TALUK -562107
BANGALORE DISTRICT.
20. SRI RAMAKRISHNA M., S/O MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
WORKING AS PEON
S.J.B.C. JUNIOR COLLEGE,
ATTIBELE, ANEKAL TALUK -562107
BANGALORE DISTRICT.
21. SRI A.R. JAYARAME GOWDA, S/O RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
WORKING AS PRINCIPAL
PANDITH NEHRU COMPOSITE P.U. COLLEGE,
KOOTAGAL,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
22. SRI RAVIKUMARA T.,
S/O THIBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
WORKING AS LECTURER
PANDITH NEHRU COMPOSITE P.U. COLLEGE,
5
KOOTAGAL,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
23. SRI HANUMEGOWDA, S/O KARIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
WORKING AS SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT
PANDITH NEHRU COMPOSITE P.U. COLLEGE,
KOOTAGAL
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
24. SRI RAMAIAH G.A., S/O AYYANNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
WORKING AS LECTURER
PANDITH NEHRU COMPOSITE P.U. COLLEGE,
KOOTAGAL,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
25. SRI MOHANA G.C., S/O G.C. CHENNE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
WORKING AS LECTURER
PANDITH NEHRU COMPOSITE P.U. COLLEGE,
KOOTAGAL,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
26. SRI RAMACHANDRE GOWDA, S/O DURGE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
WORKING AS PRINCIPAL RURAL P.U. COLLEGE,
SATHANUR, KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
27. SRI KUMARA Y.C.
S/O CHIKKAIDE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
WORKING AS LECTURER IN KANNADA
RURAL P.U. COLLEGE,
SATHANUR, KANAKAPURA TLAUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
28. SMT. VEENA M.C.
W/O L. VARADARAJA KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
WORKING AS LECTURER IN ENGLISH
RURAL P.U. COLLEGE, SATHANUR,
6
KANAKAPURA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
29. SRI ASHOKA R., S/O RAMAKRISHNA
MAJOR IN AGE,
WOKRING AS LECTURER IN SOCIOLOGY
RURAL P.U. COLLEGE,
SATHANUR, KANAKAPURA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
30. SRI MALLIKARJUNAIAH C.S.,
S/O SUBBEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
WORKING AS LECTURER IN ECONOMICS
RURAL P.U.COLLEGE,
SATHANUR, KANAKAPURA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
31. SRI PUTTASWAMY S.,
S/O SHARVESHA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
WORKING AS SECOND DIVISION CLERK
RURAL P.U.COLLEGE,
SATHANUR, KANAKAPURA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
32. SRI SHASHIDHARA R.,
S/O REVANNA SIDDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
WORKING AS PRINCIPAL
SREE MAHALINGASWAMY RURAL P.U. COLLEGE,
HUNASANAHALLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
33. SMT. UMME RESHA A.K.,
W/O NAVEED AHAMAD
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
WORKING AS INCHARGE PRINCIPAL
FAROOQIA D.Ed., COLLEGE,
UDAYAGIRI
MYSORE-19.
7
34. SMT. FOUSALA T.P.,
W/O SYED ASIF AHMED M
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
WORKING AS SECOND DIVISION CLERK
FAROOQIA D.Ed., COLLEGE, UDAYAGIRI
MYSORE-19.
35. SRI ABDUL KHALIQ, S/O ABDUL SAMAD
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
WORK ING AS GROUP-D EMPLOYEE
FAROOQIA D.Ed., COLLEGE, UDAYAGIRI
MYSORE-19.
36. SMT. H.C. VEENA, W/O V. NAGARAJA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
WORKING AS LECTURER
INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION
SRI HARNARAYAN SOMANI D.Ed. COLLEGE,
MYSORE-570 023.
37. SRI H.S. THIMMARAJU, S/O SIDDAPPA H.,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
WORKING AS LECTURER
SRI MANNAMMA P.U. COLLEGE,
NALLUR, CHANNAGIRI TLAUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
38. SMT. J.K. REKHA, W/O M.S. ADAVI,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
WORKING AS TYPIST
SRI MANNAMMA P.U. COLLEGE
NALLUR, CHANNAGIRI TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
39. SRI RAMESHA H.,
S/O HANUMANTHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
WORKING AS LECTURER
SRI SHIVAGANGA COMPOSITE PRE-UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE, SHIVAGANGE-562 129,
NELAMANGALA TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
8
40. SRI SHIVASHANKARA B.G.,
S/O GANGANNA L.,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
WORKING AS LECTURER
SRI SHIVAGANGA COMPOSITE PRE-UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE, SHIVAGANGE-562 129,
NELAMANGALA TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
41. SRI M. LINGAIAH, S/O MALLAIAH
WORKING AS LECTURER
SRI SHIVAGANGA COMPOSITE PRE-UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE, SHIVAGANGE-562 129,
NELAMANGALA TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
42. SRI RAJAKUMAR N., S/O NINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
WORKING AS LECTURER
SRI SHIVAGANGA COMPOSITE PRE-UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE, SHIVAGANGE-562 129,
NELAMANGALA TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
43. SRI SHANKARA NAIK K., S/O KIMMA NAIK
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS LECTURER
SRI SHIVAGANGA COMPOSITE PRE-UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE, SHIVAGANGE-562 129,
NELAMANGALA TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
44. SRI YOGANANDA C.N., S/O NANJUNDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
WORKING AS SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT
SRI SHIVAGANGA COMPOSITE PRE-UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE, SHIVAGANGE-562 129,
NELAMANGALA TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
45. SRI LAXMANAMURTHY S., S/O SIDDARAJU
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS LECTURER IN ECONOMICS
9
SRI GANGADHARESHWARA COMPOSITE P.U. COLLEGE,
KAMALANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 079.
46. SRI SUNDARESH K.T.,
S/O THIBBAIAH @ PAPANNA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
WORKING AS LECTURER IN GEOGRAPHY
SRI GANGADHARESHWARA COMPOSITE P.U. COLLEGE,
KAMALANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 079.
47. SRI MAHADEVAIAH, S/O GANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
WORKING AS SECOND DIVISION CLERK,
SRI GANGADHARESHWARA COMPOSITE P.U. COLLEGE,
KAMALANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 079.
48. SRI GOPAL B., S/O BEVOORE GOWDA K.B.,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
WORKING AS LECTURER IN POLITICAL SCIENCE
BHARATIYA SAMSKRUTI VIDYAPITA
PRE-UNIVERSITY COLLEGE FOR WOMEN
IJOOR, RAMANAGARA TOWN-562159
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
49. SRI SHIVANNA G.,
S/O LATE GANGADHARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
WORKING AS LECTURER IN ECONOMICS
BHARATIYA SAMSKRUTI VIDYAPITA
PRE-UNIVERSITY COLLEGE FOR WOMEN
IJOOR, RAMANAGARA TOWN-562159
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
50. SMT. MANJULA P., D/O LATE PUTTASWAMY GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
WORKING AS LECTURER IN COMMERCE
BHARATIYA SAMSKRUTI VIDYAPITA
PRE-UNIVERSITY COLLEGE FOR WOMEN
IJOOR, RAMANAGARA TOWN-562159
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
10
51. SRI VENKATACHALAIAH, S/O VENKATAIAH
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
WORKING AS LECTURER IN KANNADA
BHARATIYA SAMSKRUTI VIDYAPITA
PRE-UNIVERSITY COLLEGE FOR WOMEN
IJOOR, RAMANAGARA TOWN-562159
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
52. SMT. VEENA G.M.,
D/O MANCHE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS LECTURER IN ENGLISH
BHARATIYA SAMSKRUTI VIDYAPITA
PRE-UNIVERSITY COLLEGE FOR WOMEN
IJOOR, RAMANAGARA TOWN-562159
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI R. PADMANABHA, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY & SECONDARY EDUCATION,
M.S. BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF PRE-UNIVERSITY EDUCATION
18TH CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD,
MALLESHWARAM
BANGALORE-560 012.
3. THE DIRECTOR
DIRECTORATE OF STATE EDUCATION
RESEARCH AND TRAINING,
NO.4, 100 FEET RING ROAD,
HOSAKEREHALLI, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE,
BANGALORE-560 085.
4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PRE-UNIVERSITY EDUCATION
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT
CHITRADURGA.
11
5. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PRE-UNIVERSITY EDUCATION
B.P. WADIA ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI,
BANGALORE-560 004.
6. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PRE-UNIVERSITY EDUCATION
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
RAMANAGARA.
7. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PRE-UNIVERSITY EDUCATION
MYSORE DISTRICT
MYSORE.
8. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PRE-UNIVERSITY EDUCATION
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT
DAVANAGERE.
9. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PRE-UNIVERSITY EDUCATION
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
BANGALORE.
10. THE PRINCIPAL
DISTRICT INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION TRAINING,
MYSORE.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. M.S. PRATHIMA, HCGP FOR R1 TO R9)
THESE PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT
THE RESPONDENTS TO RECKON AND COUNT THE PAST
SERVICE RENDERED BY THE PETITIONERS FROM THE DATE OF
THEIR INITIAL APPOINTMENT UP TO THE DATE OF APPROVAL
OF THEIR APPOINTMENT WITH AID, ETC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioners are teaching and non-teaching staffs of private aided educational institutions. According to the 12 petitioners, their appointments were approved by respondent No.1. While approving the appointment, a condition having been imposed that the past service rendered from the date of appointment till the appointee was admitted for salary grant will be counted only for the purpose of leave and pension and thereby denied the notional annual increments, these writ petitions were filed on 27.01.2014, to direct the respondents to take into account the service of the petitioners from the date of their initial entry i.e., from the date of appointment, instead of from the date of their posts were admitted to grant-in-aid i.e., for the purpose of computing the pay scale, seniority and other consequential service benefits.
2. Sri R.Padmanabha, learned advocate for the petitioners contended that the writ petitions filed by some of the teachers working in different institutions, seeking to reckon their services from the date of their initial appointments up to the date of approval for the purpose of fixation of pay scale, seniority and all other benefits having 13 been allowed and the writ appeals and the Special Leave Petitions filed by the Government having been dismissed, as is evident from Annexures - Z9 to Z14, the respondents have an obligation to extend the same benefit to the petitioners. He submitted that, since the respondent No.1 has not extended the said benefits to the petitioners, there is violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
3. Perused the writ record.
4. The petitioners have not made a demand with the respondents seeking to perform the legal duty. Annexure-Z8 is a legal notice and not a representation. Submission of Sri R.Padmanabha, to treat Annexure-Z8 as a representation made by the petitioners cannot be accepted. The demand must be in writing by the petitioners with all service particulars, so that the authority can secure the relevant records and take decision in the matter. Since the petitioners have not made distinct demand with the respondents by furnishing the full service particulars, with regard to the claims made in these writ 14 petitions, petitions filed for issue of writ of mandamus cannot be entertained.
5. In A. Prabhakara Reddy vs. The State of Karnataka and others, 1980 (1) KLJ 456, with regard to issuance of writ of mandamus to the authorities, it has been held as follows:
"9. As a rule this Court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution will issue a Writ of mandamus to the Authorities like the 1st and 2nd respondents if they failed to discharge their duties arising out of legal obligations, in spite of a written demand. It is only when such duties are cast on the authorities and they fail to perform them, the right to seek a Writ of Mandamus arises in favour of the citizen."
6. In Sri D.L. Chowda Reddy and others vs. The State of Karnataka, by its Secretary, Department of Primary Education and others, ILR 2013 Kar 5085, considering the object of Writ of Mandamus and criteria for issue of Writ of Mandamus, in a case relating to the identical claim, it was held as follows:
"2. The object of issue of writ of mandamus is to compel performance of a legal duty. A mandamus will be issued to a person aggrieved who approaches the Court, if he makes out (i) existence of a legal right in him and a corresponding obligation on the respondent to 15 perform a legal duty and (ii) refusal, either express or implied, by the respondent to perform such duty, in spite of a demand. Where a petition seeking mandamus is not preceded by demand for performance of a legal duty, the Court cannot entertain such a petition."
7. In SARASWATI INDUSTRIAL SYNDICATE LTD. ETC., vs. UNION OF INDIA, AIR 1975 SC 460, Apex Court has held as follows:
"24...... As a general rule writ of mandamus will not be granted unless the party complained of has known what it was he was required to do, so that he had the means of considering whether or not he should comply, and it must be shown by evidence that there was a distinct demand of that which the party seeking the mandamus desires to enforce, and that, that demand was met by a refusal."
8. In Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation vs. Subhash Sindhi Cooperative Housing Society, Jaipur and Others, (2013) 5 SCC 427, Apex Court has held that while granting a writ, the Court must make every effort to ensure from the averments of the writ petition, there exists proper pleadings. With regard to the writ of mandamus, it has been held as follows:
16
"24......In order to maintain the writ of mandamus, the first and foremost requirement is that the petition must not be frivolous, and must be filed in good faith. Additionally, the applicant must make a demand which is clear, plain and unambiguous. It must be made to an officer having the requisite authority to perform the act demanded. Furthermore, the authority against whom mandamus is issued, should have rejected the demand earlier. Therefore, a demand and its subsequent refusal, either by words, or by conduct, are necessary to satisfy the court that the opposite party is determined to ignore the demand of the applicant with respect to the enforcement of his legal right......."
The ratio of the above decision was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation and another vs. Diamond & Gem Development Corporation Limited and another, (2013) 5 SCC 470.
9. Sri R.Padmanabha, conceded that prior to filing of these writ petitions, the petitioners did not submit individual written representations to the respondents seeking to extend the service benefits on par with the relief, which the teachers working in other institutions have got by virtue of the orders passed vide Annexures - Z9 to Z14.
17
10. The petitioners having not made distinct demand in writing with competent authority having the requisite authority to perform the demand and there being no opportunity for the competent authority to examine the claims and take decision in the matters, these writ petitions for issue of writ of mandamus to the respondents, in view of the ratio of law in the decisions, noticed supra, cannot be entertained.
In the result, writ petitions are rejected. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to approach office of the authority having the requisite authority to perform the act demanded and for extending benefits. If the competent authority does not act in the matter within a reasonable period, it is open to the petitioners to seek relief, if any, in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE ca