Karnataka High Court
Smt. Leelavathi K vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 July, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 KAR 386
Bench: A.S.Bopanna, Mohammad Nawaz
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2018
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S.BOPANNA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
WRIT PETITION NO.22140/2018 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
SMT. LEELAVATHI K
W/O SRI RANGANATH
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS
HINDI TEACHER
GOVERNEMNT HIGHER
PRIMARY SCHOOL, T. BEGUR
NELAMANGALA TALUK
BENGALURU RURLA DISRICT-562123
R/AT KACHANAHALLI VILALGE
BOODHIHAL POST
NELAMANGALA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI VIJAYA KUMAR, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY EDUCATION,
VIKAS SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001
2. THE COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
-2-
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001
3. THE DPEUTY DIRECTOR OF
PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS (ADMINSITRATION)
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
ADJACENT OS SIKSHAKARA BHAVANA
K G ROAD
BENGALURU-560 009
4. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
NELAMANGALA-562123
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ANITHA N, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RELEVANT RECORDS AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
26.03.2018 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION NO.6953/2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND
SET ASIDE AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION AS PRAYED FOR.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, A.S. BOPANNA. J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Learned Government Advocate, to accept notice for respondents No. 1 to 4 and file Memo of Appearance in four weeks.
-3-
2. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 26.03.2018 passed in Application No.6953/2016 by the KSAT.
3. The petitioner claiming to be aggrieved by the order dated 27.07.2016 which was assailed at Annexure 'A1' before the KSAT was contending that the transfer as made to the Primary School at Kottigemachenahalli, GHPS, Doddaballapur Taluk is not justified. The petitioner was appointed on 31.07.2002 and was initially posted at Gulbarga District. Prior to her transfer, she was working in T.Begur, Nelamangala, Bangalore North Taluk. She had spent about nine years in the said position. At that stage, considering that the petitioner was treated as an excess teacher in the said post was allowed to participate in the counselling process and accordingly on completion of the said process, the order dated 27.07.2016 was issued posting her in the manner as indicated therein. The petitioner claiming to be aggrieved was before the -4- KSAT. The KSAT after taking note of the contentions as put forth has arrived at the conclusion that the order does not call for interference. However, liberty has been granted to make appropriate request to the competent authority in that regard.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the order impugned before the KSAT as also the order of the KSAT would contend that the posting as made is contrary to the Government Orders dated 01.04.2011 at Annexure 'A4' to the petition. In that light, it is contended that the same provides for the appropriate posting of the language teachers depending upon the strength of the students. It is his case that the school wherein the petitioner was working required a Hindi teacher. But the present transfer as made is not as a Hindi teacher to another School and in that School the strength of the Hindi students is less than the required number as per the Government Order. In that regard, it is contended that the -5- posting as made is not justified. The contention is also that another teacher who had a grievance and had made representation has been considered in a favourable manner and therefore, the action of the respondents is not justified.
5. Having taken note of the contention and in that light a perusal of the petition papers including the order passed by the KSAT would indicate that the KSAT in fact has adverted to these aspects of the matter and in that light having taken note of the fact that the order dated 27.07.2016 was passed after the counselling process in which the petitioner had participated and further being not satisfied with the contention that she was forced to agree to the proposal, was of the opinion that the order does not call for interference. In that situation, we are also of the opinion that when the posting has been made pursuant to the counselling process and the petitioner has thereafter reported and is working in the said position, at -6- this stage interfering with the order dated 27.07.2016 or the order passed by the KSAT impugned herein would not be justified.
6. In any event, as rightly pointed out by the KSAT, the representation as made by the petitioner is required to be considered by the competent authority. In that view, to that extent liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file a fresh representation including the copies of the earlier representation by indicating the reason for which the petitioner is seeking a posting away from the place where she is now posted. Keeping in view the change in circumstance if any, or the reasons as assigned by the petitioner, the representation shall be considered one way or the other in accordance with law within a period of three weeks from the date on which the representation is made.
In the said process if the respondents are of the opinion that a favourable consideration is to be made by -7- permitting the petitioner to participate in the counselling process for a different posting, appropriate orders in that regard may also be passed before the counselling process commences.
With such liberty to the petitioner and direction to the respondents to take note and consider the representation in accordance with law, the instant petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE SPS/bms