Karnataka High Court
Sri D L Chowda Reddy vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 November, 2012
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
Bench: A.N. Venugopala Gowda
1
®
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NOS.46435-43439/2012 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. Sri D.L. Chowda Reddy,
S/o. Laxmanna,
Aged about 45 years,
Occ: Head Master.
2. Sri C.V. Venkataramanappa,
S/o. Venkatarayappa,
Aged about 46 years,
Occ: Assistant Teacher.
3. Sri J. Vinayaka,
S/o. A. Jayanna,
Aged about 38 years,
Occ: Assistant Teacher.
4. Sri C. Shiva Reddy,
S/o. Chowdappa,
Aged about 47 years,
Occ: Assistant Teacher.
5. Sri K.V. Shivanna,
S/o. Venkatanathappa,
Aged about 38 years,
Occ: P.E. Teacher.
2
All are working at
Gnana Bharathi Higher Primary School,
Munganahalli, Chintamani (Tq),
Chikkaballapur District. ...PETITIONERS
(By Sri G.B. Maruthi & Sri M.N. Vijay Kumar, Advs.)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
By its Secretary,
Department of Primary Education,
Multistoried Building, Vidhana Veedhi,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The Commissioner,
Department of Primary Education,
Nrupathunga Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
3. The Deputy Director of Public Instructions,
Administration,
Department of Public Instructions,
Chikkaballapur - 563 123.
4. The Block Education Officer,
Chintamani,
Chikkaballapur District - 563 123.
...RESPONDENTS
(By Smt. Manjula R. Kamadolli, HCGP)
These petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India, praying to directing R1 to R4
to take into account the service of the petitioners from the
date of their initial entry i.e., from the date of appointment
instead of from the date of their post admitted to grant-in-
aid.
3
These petitions coming on for preliminary hearing
this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioners are working as Head Master, Assistant Teachers and P.E. Teacher respectively in Gnana Bharathi Higher Primary School, Munganahalli, Chintamani Taluk, Chikkaballapur District. The prayer in the writ petitions is for a mandamus directing the respondents to take into account the services of the petitioners from the date of their initial entry i.e., from the date of appointment, instead of from the date their posts were admitted to grant-in-aid i.e., for the purposes of computing the pay-scale, seniority and other consequential service benefits.
2. The object of issue of writ of mandamus is to compel performance of a legal duty. A mandamus will be issued to a person aggrieved who approaches the Court, if he makes out (i) existence of a legal right in him and a corresponding obligation on the respondent to perform a legal duty and (ii) refusal, either express or implied, by the 4 respondent to perform such duty, in spite of a demand. Where a petition seeking mandamus is not preceded by demand for performance of a legal duty, the Court cannot entertain such a petition.
3. In the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, BOMBAY Vs. SCINDIA STEAM NAVIGATION CO. LTD., AIR 1961 SC 1633, the Apex Court held as follows:
" 27..... it is well settled that no mandamus will be issued unless the applicant had made a distinct demand on the appropriate authorities for the very reliefs which he seeks to enforce by mandamus and that had been refused."
4. In UNION OF INDIA Vs. BINNY LTD., 1LR 1990 KAR 1297, it has been held as follows:
" 9. ... It is also well settled that as far as prayer for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus is concerned, it should always be preceded by a demand and refusal."
5. In these petitions, there is no averment that the petitioners had made a demand on the respondents to 5 perform any legal duty. Since the petitioners have not made any demand with the respondents, the writ petitions for issue of writ of mandamus are liable to be rejected.
In the result, the petitions are rejected, reserving liberty to the petitioners to approach the respondents seeking performance of the obligation / legal duty, if any.
Sd/-
JUDGE sac*