Karnataka High Court
Shankarappa Sharanappa Gaure vs The Deputy Director Of Public ... on 17 September, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1999(1)KARLJ438
ORDER
1. The petitioner was working as Head Master in the 3rd respondent-Dharmaprakash Higher Primary School, Basavakalyan. The said school is run by 2nd respondent-Management and has been admitted to Grant-in-Aid by the Government of Karnataka. By an order dated 25-7-1996 (Annexure-H), the Management of the school has put the petitioner under suspension, pending disciplinary enquiry.
2. The aforesaid order (Annexure-H) was subjected to an appeal before the Karnataka Educational Appellate Tribunal (in short, 'the Tribunal'), which now owes its existence under Section 96 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 (in short, 'the Education Act'), which has come into force with effect from 1-6-1995.
3. The said appeal filed before the Tribunal was numbered as EAT No. 27 of 1998. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal by its order dated 19-2-1998 (Annexure-L), on the ground of limitation. It has also rejected the I.A. filed by the petitioner for a direction to the Management to pay subsistence allowance on the ground that it is a separate cause of action and therefore an independent appeal ought to have been filed for the said purpose. The order of Tribunal clearly shows that it has not applied its mind to the merits of the case either with regard to the suspension or non-payment of subsistence allowance.
4. Now, Sri P.S. Rajagopal the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that after coming into force of Education Act, no appeal was maintainable before the Tribunal against the order of suspension pending enquiry, rather only a revision against such order could lay under Section 131 of the Education Act. Accordingly, he prays that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal be quashed setting liberty to the petitioner to prefer his statutory right of revision under the aforesaid provisions.
5. I have heard Mrs. V. Vidya, learned High Court Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 4, as well on the said aspect.
6. Originally, the Karnataka Educational Appellate Tribunal was constituted under Section 10 of the Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Act, 1975 (in short, '1975 Act'). Under Section 8 of the said Act, right was conferred on any employee aggrieved by an order of the Board of Management of a private educational institution to prefer an appeal before the Tribunal.
7. Recently, the Full Bench of this Court in the case of St. Joseph's Higher Primary School v Smt. J. Rose Mary and Others, has held that under the provisions of 1975 Act not only an employee whose services are terminated or penalty is imposed can file appeal but an employee whose service conditions are otherwise affected to his prejudice can also file an appeal before the Tribunal.
8. The said interpretation was given keeping in view the language used in Sections 7 and 8 of the 1975 Act. Now after coming into force of the Education Act, from 1-6-1995, by virtue of Section 146(1) thereof, 1975 Act stood repealed. Sub-section (1) to Section 146 of the Education Act, reads as under:--
"The Karnataka Compulsory Primary Education Act, 1961 (Karnataka Act 9 of 1961) and the Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Act, 1975 (Karnataka Act 10 of 1975) are hereby repealed".
9. Therefore, on and from 1-6-1995 the Tribunal can exercise only such jurisdiction as has been saved under the Education Act. Section 94 of the Education Act, reads as under:--
"Appeals.--(1) Any teacher or other employee of a private educational institution who is dismissed, removed or reduced in rank may within three months from the date of communication of the order prefer an appeal to the Tribunal".
10. Therefore, a bare reading of the above provisions clearly shows that any teacher or other employee of a private educational institution can prefer an appeal to the Tribunal only when dismissed, removed or reduced in rank within the prescribed time and no appeal can be entertained by the Tribunal against an order of any other nature even if it pertains to the service conditions. A Similar view has been taken by the Supreme Court in relation to Section 8 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 in the case of Principal and Others v Presiding Officer and Others, in para 8 whereof it has been held that.-
"Under sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Act it is only an employee of a recognised private school against whom an order of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank is passed who is entitled to file an appeal against such order to the Tribunal constituted under Section 11 of the Act within three months from the date of communication to him of the order. For the applicability of this provision of the Act, two conditions must co-exist. These are (1) that the employee should be an employee of a recognised private school and (2) that he should be visited with either of the three major penalties of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank. As the school was neither a recognised private school on the relevant date nor was the impugned order one of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank but was an order simpliciter of termination of service, the aforesaid appeal filed by respondent 2 to the Tribunal constituted under Section 11 of the Act was manifestly incompetent and the order passed thereon by the Tribunal was clearly without jurisdiction".
11. Keeping in view the above noticed statutory provisions and the legal principles, it is hereby held that now after enforcement of the Education Act, the Tribunal constituted thereunder could entertain the appeal of an employee of the private educational institution, only against the orders of punishments passed in disciplinary proceedings awarding major penalties of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank. So far as the other orders passed by the Management against which the employees may have grievance are concerned those can be assailed only by way of revision under Section 131 of the Education Act.
12. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal at An-nexure-L dated 19-2-1998 is quashed, setting liberty to the petitioner to avail his right of revision under Section 131 of the Education Act, in accordance with law.
13. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
14. Let a copy of a this order be made available to the learned High Court Government Pleader for communication to the Secretary, Education Department, Government of Karnataka, Bangalore, as also the Tribunal.