Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Manohar Savanth S on 20 July, 2022
Bench: G.Narendar, P.N.Desai
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.DESAI
WRIT PETITION NO.6541/2021 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
(PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION)
M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURUR - 560001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SUBRAMANYA R, ADDL ADV. GENERAL AND
SRI B.RAJENDRA PRASAD, HCGP.)
AND:
1. MANOHAR SAVANTH S
S/O.LATE SHANKAR RAO SAVANTH,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
FDA, OFFICE OF THE DDPI,
BANGALORE NORTH DISTRICT,
K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE 560002.
RESIDING AT NO.5/208,
SHANKARA NILAYA,
INDIRA EXTENSION, ANEKAL,
BANGALORE - 562106.
2
2. KALYANKUMAR
S/O.LATE K.L.ASHWATHNARAYANA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
OFFICE OF THE DDPI,
KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR,
RESIDING AT YAGNAVALKA MANDIR ROAD,
NEAR VANI ENGLISH SCHOOL, CHINTAMANI,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-563125.
3. K S RAVISHANKARA
S/O.SREEKANTA JOIS,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
FDA, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER
FOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, N T ROAD,
BENGALURU 560001.
RESIDING AT NO.30, 12TH MAIN,
MUTHYALANAGARA, BANGALORE 560054.
4. H GANGADHARA TILAK
S/O.LATE H.N.HANUMANTHARAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
FDA, OFFICE OF THE DDPI,
TUMKUR DISTRIC, TUMKUR,
RESIDING AT SRI MARUTHI NILAYA,
2ND MAIN, 4TH 'C' CROSS,
HANUMANTHAPURA,TUMKUR-572107.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI P.S.RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI NARAYAN M.NAIK, ADV. FOR C/R1 TO R4.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 23.01.2020 IN APPLICATION
NOs.88 TO 91 OF 2018 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU VIDE ANNX-A ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR "PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP" THIS DAY, G.NARENDAR J, MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
Heard the learned Senior counsel Sri P.S. Rajagopal on behalf of the respondents/caveators.
2. After hearing the learned High Court Government Pleader, we have perused the relief granted by the tribunal which reads as under:-
"i) The applications are hereby allowed.
ii) The respondent Nos.1 & 2 are hereby directed to consider the case of the applicants for considering the deemed date of eligibility/officiating promotion from the date on which, they were placed under rule 32 of KCSR (15.02.2001) by considering their representations and place them in the seniority list of FDA's at the appropriate place with all consequential benefits.
iii) The above exercise shall be done within five months from the date of receipt of copy of this order."
3. On a reading of the above, it is apparent that the relief granted is an innocuous and a simple relief in the nature of a mandamus, that is, to consider the case of the applicants and the said application was allowed way back in January, 2020 and almost 2½ years have gone by. We 4 have been experiencing such petitions being preferred by the departments of the State ventilating grievances against innocuous directions or mandamus despite there being clarity in the orders i.e. in and on what the tribunal had decided and what the tribunal had directed the respondents and we have been noticing that uniformly the writ petitions are coming-up belatedly before this Court. Petitions filed in 2018, 2019 & 2020 are being listed before the Court now. The reliefs granted are majorly in the nature of mandamus to consider the grievances of the applicant. If challenges are mounted to such orders and are being questioned before this Court, it sends a signal that the departments are adopting an adversarial stand. In our opinion, the same is not expected of a dominant litigant like the State. If such a policy of an adversarial positioning of the State is accepted, it could result in flooding the Courts with futile petitions. On the other hand, even if a conservative approach, leave alone a pro-active, is adopted, the orders under challenge, would have reached the logical end and the issues would have also reached finality. But with the present approach, 5 the State, the biggest litigant, has successfully kept the embers burning and in vain. The issue involved would have attained finality had the Executive taken upon itself to apply its mind and refrained from abdicating their duties. Apparently, the issue involved does not require knowledge of any rocket science and purely revolves around the service regulations in which, we feel the law is well settled.
4. Taking note of this developments, we requested the learned Additional Advocate General who is present in the Court to assist us as we are of the opinion that such an approach of the executive is a worrying trend which can only lead to wasteful expenditure and more importantly, waste of precious judicial time.
5. The learned Additional Advocate General after perusing the order as extracted supra, would submit that though the earlier part pertains to consideration, the latter portion of the order perhaps may be interpreted to read otherwise. We appreciate the candidness and the submissions, but at the same time, we are of the opinion 6 that if any such doubt was entertained by the departments, it could have been simply got clarified at the hands of the tribunal itself and which exercise would not require 2½ years. We hope this suggestion of us is appreciated in its true spirit.
6. Be that as it may, taking note of such frivolous petitions, in fact on the other day we had imposed a cost of Rs.25,000/- on the petitioners. In that view, we hope that the petitioners i.e. the respondent-State would appreciate the sentiments of this Court and initiate measures as is required to ensure that no meaningless exercise is carried out resulting in vain effort.
7. The learned Additional Advocate General assures that he would convey the sentiments of this Court to the establishment to ensure that such avoidable litigations are not brought before the Court. We are constrained to express our views for otherwise, this delay in having the petition examined can also be construed to be a deliberate one by the petitioners to put off the inevitable to avoid such 7 adverse inference being drawn and to avoid a wrong impression before the Court.
8. In view of the assurance made by the Additional Advocate General that the issue would be discussed in the right quarters and measures adopted, we deem it appropriate to grant time to the petitioners-State to work- out a mechanism by way of a policy as is adopted by the Central Government. At this juncture, we would also like to re-call the fact that a little while ago the Chief Secretary had also issued a notification calling upon the departments for implementation of a system ensuring expeditious closure of enquires.
9. Be that as it may, the learned Additional Advocate General would submit that the instant writ petition could be disposed off by clarifying that the direction to consider the case of the petitioners, the learned senior counsel would also concur with the same. Accordingly, we dispose off the writ petition by directing the second petitioner to consider the case of the applicants in terms of 8 the law laid down by this Court in the case of the State of Karnataka, represented by its Secretary, Department of Co- operation and another Vs. D.N. Tigadi decided in W.P. No.63703/2010 and a decision by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gonal Bhimappa Vs. State of Karnataka and others, reported in (AIR 1987 SC 2359). The consideration and disposal of the case of the applicants/respondents shall be within an outer limit of four weeks.
10. In view of the long passage of time from the date of the application to this day, which is more than five years, we are of the opinion that it would be appropriate to direct the respondents to submit a representation updating any developments in the interregnum which are required for a fruitful resolution of the issue that is required to be adjudicated by the second petitioner.
11. Such representation shall be made within a period of ten days and the same shall be considered and disposed off within a period of four weeks in accordance with law.
9
In view of disposal of the petition, pending I.A, if any, does not survive for consideration and is accordingly disposed off.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Chs CT-HR