Sri Nayana Kumar vs The Director on 29 September, 2020

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Nayana Kumar vs The Director on 29 September, 2020

Bench: R. Devdas

                         -1-


 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2020

                      BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. DEVDAS

        WRIT PETITION NO.30025/2014 (S-DE)

BETWEEN:

SRI NAYANA KUMAR,
S/O P SRINIVASA ACHARYA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
N.R.A M POLYTECHNIC (AIDED),
NITTE - 574 110,
KARKALA TQ.
UDUPI DISTRICT.
                                   ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. CHANDRANATH ARIGA K, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE DIRECTOR,
       BOARD OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION,
       TANTRIC SIKSHANA BAVANA,
       PALACE ROAD,
       BANGALORE - 01.

2.     VISHWANATHAN K.,
       S/O L KRISHNA SHASTRY,
       AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
       LECTURER BY PROFESSION,
       NRAM POLYTECHNIC (AIDED),
       NITTE - 574 110,
       KARKALA TQ.
       UDUPI DISTRICT.

3.     MR. PRASHANTH KUMAR K.,
       S/O MARIYAPPA HOLLA K.,
                             -2-


     AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
     LECTURER BY PROFESSION,
     NRAM POLYTECHNIC (AIDED),
     NITTE - 574 110,
     KARKALA TQ.
     UDUPI DISTRICT.

4.   NRAM POLYTECHNIC (AIDED),
     NITTE - 574 110,
     KARKALA TQ.,
     UDUPI DISTRICT.
                                  ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K.V.ARAVIND, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3;
    SRI.ARAVIND V CHARAN, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
    SRI.C.N.MAHADESHWARAN, AGA FOR R1)

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO DIRECT THE R-1 TO HOLD AN ENQUIRY ON THE
PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER AGAINST R-3 AND
ETC.,

    THIS   WRIT  PETITION   COMING    ON   FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:



                       ORDER

R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

The prayer in this writ petition is to direct respondent No.1- Director, Board of Technical Education, to hold an enquiry against R-3 (According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the enquiry was sought against R-2 and R-3) -3- and direct the respondents 2 and 3 to repay the excess salary drawn.

2. It is contended by the petitioner who was also working in the 4th respondent -Institution that Respondents 2 and 3 joined the services of 4th respondent

- institution as Asst. Lecturers /Lecturers. It is contended that R-2 and R-3 were working in the 4th respondent - Institution while they were also working as full time lecturers in other institution. Therefore, it is the contention of the petitioner that while R-2 and R-3 were working in the 4th respondent - aided institution they could not have worked in any other institution and drawn two salaries.

3. The learned counsel for Respondents 2 and 3 submits that the writ petition is not maintainable. Even otherwise on facts, it is submitted that Respondents 2 and 3 were working in another institution before the fourth respondent was admitted to Grant-in-aid and the same in the case with the other institutions where the respondents 2 and 3 were working. It is therefore submitted that in law -4- the respondents 2 and 3 have not committed any mistake or violated any norms.

4. Having heard the learned counsel and on perusing the documents, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has not agitated violation of any rights of the petitioner.

5. It is also well settled principle that public interest litigation in service matter cannot be entertained except for a writ of quo-warranto as per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Salil Sabhlok & Ors, reported in 2013 AIR SCW 1697.

6. Since the petitioner has not agitated violation of any personal rights, this writ petition cannot be entertained and is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE NM

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court