Karnataka High Court
M/S Professional Management vs State Of Karnataka on 7 March, 2017
Author: S.Sujatha
Bench: S.Sujatha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION No.15952/2015 (EDN - RES)
BETWEEN:
M/s. Professional Management
Educational Trust
Having its office at "Ganesh"
S-2/111, 2nd Main Road,
SFS Colony, Opposite to
Mother Dairy
Yelahanka New Town
Bengaluru - 560064.
Represented by its
Trustee Sri.C.R.Chandran. ....Petitioner
(By Sri.Shyam Koundinya.A.S, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka
Education Department
M.S.Building
Ambedkar Veedhi
Bangalore - 560001
Represented by the
Under Secretary to
The Government.
2. The Pre University Education Board
Smapige Road, 18th Cross,
Malleshwaram,
Bengaluru - 560012.
2
3. Dr.Shobha.S
W/o Shri.Dr.Kumar G.Sannad
Aged about 52 Years
Principal (Incharge)
Adarsha PU College
R/o. No.504, 10th F Main
75 Cross, 6th Block,
Rajajinagar, Bengaluru - 560010.
4. Smt.A.Shashikala
W/o Shri.L.R.Narayana
Aged about 53 Years
Lecturer in History
Adarsha PU College
R/o. No.306, 6th 'A' Cross
7th 'A' Main, RPC Layout
Bengaluru - 560040.
5. Mr.M.Lakshminarayana
S/o Late G.Munivenkatappa
Aged about 45 Years
Adarsha PU College
R/o. H.No.5, "Sanjeevini"
Muneshwar Temple Road
Amruthahalli, Sahakarnagar Post
Bengaluru - 560092.
6. Mr.B.K.Sreedhara
S/o Shri.B.Krishna Murthy
Aged about 42 Years
Lecturer in Commerce
Adarsha PU College
R/o. H.No.1114/H, 9th Cross
Ashoknagar, BSK I Stage
Bengaluru - 560050.
3
7. Mr.K.S.Rajagopalan
S/o Late K.R.Subbaramanyam
Aged about 48 Years
Office Assistant
Adarsha PU College
No.40, "Karthik Nilayam"
4th 'B' Main, Someshwaranagar
Chikkabommasandra,
GKVK Post, Yelahanka New Town
Bengaluru - 560065. ....Respondents
(By Sri.H.T.Narendra Parasad, AGA for R1 and R2,
Sri.M.A.Narayana, Advocate for R3 to R6)
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227
of the Constitution of India praying to quash the
notification dated 26th September 2012 issued by the
respondent No.1 vide Annexure-C and direct the
respondent No.1 to remove/exclude the list of
respondents 3 to 7 in the aided staff by the
Government.
This petition coming on for preliminary hearing in 'B'
group this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioner is challenging the notification dated 26th September 2012 issued by the first respondent at Annexure-C to the writ petition and for a direction to the respondent No.1 to remove/exclude the respondent 4 Nos.3 to 7 from the aided staff list by the Government and grant such other reliefs.
2. The petitioner contends that it is a trust by virtue of the memorandum of understanding dated 01.09.2006, has been in the management and control of the entire affairs and properties relating to the institution of M/s. Adarsha Educational and Social Service Trust (R). The Government and PU Board without consent and knowledge of the petitioner, included the respondent Nos.3 to 7 in the list of the Government aided staff. Respondent No.7 died during the writ petition proceedings. The respondent Nos.3 to 6 taking undue advantage of their inclusion in the Government aided list, in connivance and collusion with the Adarsha Trust have been causing consistent hindrance in the Management of the affairs of the institutions by the petitioner. Learned counsel Sri.Shyam Koundinya.A.S reiterating these grounds 5 urged in the writ petition as aforesaid, would contend that the Civil dispute is pending between the petitioner and the Adarsha Educational and Social Services Trust. The respondent Nos.3 to 6 were recommended in the year 2008 by the then Management, as the same being basis for the inclusion of the respondent Nos.3 to 6 to the grant-in-aid in the year 2012, the same is contrary to the provisions of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 ('Act' for short) since this petition has not recommended the list of teachers for the grant-in-aid.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.3 to 6 would submit that these respondents are included in the list of grant- in-aid by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 after duly following the procedure prescribed under the Act and relevant Rules. These respondents are discharging their duties with utmost regard to the Act and Rules. If there is any violation or deficiency of services on the part of 6 these respondents, the petitioner being controlling Authority, is always at liberty to initiate the disciplinary action. It is for the reason of getting the grant-in-aid, the petitioner cannot make allegations against these respondents and seek for a direction to remove or exclude them from the aided staff list.
4. Learned Government advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 would contend that these respondents proceeded to include the name of the respondent Nos.3 to 7 for the grant-in-aid based on the recommendations made by the Adarsha Educational and Social Services Trust. The petitioner has no locus to challenge the impugned order in as much as the Karnataka Educations Institutions (C & R Rules 1990) and (Change in the Governing Councils or Change in the Location of Private Educational Institutions) Rules, 2006, if there is any change in the governing council taking over the institutions, necessary permission is 7 required from the Competent Authority. No such permission being obtained by the petitioner to take over the Adarsha Educational and Social Services Trust, any memorandum of understanding entered into by the petitioner is not binding on these respondents. Accordingly, he seeks for dismissal of the petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
6. It is discerned that the petitioner is claiming the rights over the schools run by Adarsha Educational and Social Services Trust based on the memorandum of understanding at Annexure-A. It is also not in dispute that civil disputes are pending between the petitioner and the said Adarsha Trust as regards the running of schools. Rule 4 (iv) of The Karnataka Educational Institutions Rules contemplates the conditions for Change in the Governing Councils or Change in the Location of Private Educational Institutions. Sub-clause 8 (4) provides that if the Competent Authority permits change in the governing Council, a fresh application for registration and recognition shall be made as if it were a newly started institution. Sub-clause (5) provides that no change of governing Council shall be permissible more than once. Sub-clause (6) provides, the governing Council taking over the institution shall continue with the students existing under the governing Council transferring the institution. The staff appointed as per the staffing pattern, who are existing under the governing Council transferring the institution, shall be continued by the governing Council taking over the institution. The staff appointed as per the staffing pattern, who are existing under the governing Council transferring the institution, shall be continued by the governing Council taking over the institution. These provisions mandates the permission to change the Governing Council. Based on the memorandum of understanding, the petitioner do not acquire a right to 9 challenge the inclusion of the respondent Nos.3 to 6 who are the staff employed by the old management Adarsha Trust. The Civil disputes pending between the petitioner and the Adarsha Trust are inter-se private disputes, not affecting the rights of the respondent Nos.3 to 6 to get included in grant-in-aid benefits. Merely for the reason that the proposals were submitted by the Adarsha Trust, the petitioner trust now cannot contend that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 contravened the provisions of Act and relevant Rules in not obtaining consent of the petitioner. The petitioner's right itself is in dispute as contended by the petitioner. If so, the challenge made by the petitioner to the notification issued by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 is wholly untenable. The grounds urged by the petitioner requires to be negatived for the reasons aforesaid.
The petition is bereft of any merits and accordingly stands dismissed.
10
It is needless to observe that any observations made in this writ petition shall not influence the matters pending before the Civil Court.
However, it is made clear that the petitioner or the Adarsha Trust if found, respondent Nos.3 to 6 are taking undue advantage of the inter-se dispute between them, they are at liberty to bring to the notice of the respondent No.2 which in turn shall take an appropriate action in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE NC