Karnataka High Court
Arjun S/O. Kareppa Bagi vs The State O F Karnataka on 30 July, 2012
Author: S.Abdul Nazeer
Bench: S. Abdul Nazeer
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER
WRIT PETITION NOS.63731 TO 63732/2012
& W.P.NOS.63748 TO 63766/2012 (S-RES)
Between:
1 Sri Arjun,
S/o Kareppa Bagi,
Aged about 32 years,
R/o Alakhanur, Raibag Tq.,
Belgaum Dist.591 220.
2 Sri Shivanand,
S/o Basappa Gugada,
Aged about 30 years,
R/o Badabbakuda,
Alakhanur Post, Raibag Tq.,
Belgaum Dist. 591 220.
3 Sri Raju,
S/o Shivaji Dalavai,
Aged about 28 years,
R/o Shiragura, Raibag Tq.,
Belgaum Dist. 591 311.
2
4 Kumari Deepa,
D/o Kareppa Gaddi,
Aged about 27 years,
R/o Alakhanur,
Raibag Tq.,
Belgaum Dist. 591 220.
5 Smt.Laxmibai,
W/o S.Kalale,
Aged about 29 years,
R/o Morab, Raibag Taluk,
Belgaum Dist. 591 338.
6 Sri Adrushya,
S/o N.Bellikatti,
Aged about 31 years,
R/o Neginahala,
Bailhongal Tq.,
Belgaum Dist.591 190.
7 Sri Ravindra,
S/o S.Kamble,
Aged about 39 years,
R/o Mangalasuli,
Athani Tq., Belgaum Dist.591 304.
8 Sri Ramesh,
S/o Sahadeva Gaddennavar,
Aged about 27 years,
R/o Kudachi, Raibag Tq.,
Belgaum Dist.591 311.
9 Sri Krishnakumar,
S/o Venkappa Halagatti,
Aged about 33 years,
R/o Byranatti, Gokak Taluk,
Belgaum Dist. 591 307.
3
10 Dadasaheb,
S/o Sripala Patil,
Aged about 29 years,
R/o Kudachi, Raibag Tq.,
Belgaum Dist. 591 311.
11 Mahadeva,
S/o Laxman Dombar,
Aged about 43 years,
R/o Melavamshi, Gokak Tq.,
Belgaum Dist. 591 307.
12 Sri Anand,
S/o Malgouda Patil,
Aged about 26 years,
R/o Savasuddi, Raibag Tq.,
Belgaum Dist. 591 502.
13 Sri Anand,
S/o Bhimappa Lamani,
Aged about 26 years,
R/o Dadibhamvi, Ramdurga Tq.,
Belgaum Dist. 591 123.
14 Smt. Sharada,
W/o Gouda, aged about 42 years,
R/o Stanamuda Mavinakurava Post,
Honnavara Taluk, U.K.Dist.581 432.
15 Sri Rafi,
S/o Babulal Ansari,
(Pradhana Gurugalu),
Aged about 50 years,
R/o Maladara Galli (Guruvarapet),
Gokak Post & Tq.,
Belgaum Dist.591 307.
4
16 Manthayya,
S/o Irayya Ganachari,
Aged about 43 years,
R/o Badala Ankalagi,
Belgaum Tq. & Dist. 590 001.
17 Sri Lokesh,
S/o Dasharatha Kamble,
Aged about 26 years,
R/o Banajavada, Shatrala Post,
Athani Tq., Belgaum Dist.591 304.
18 Sri Ujjawla,
S/o Appu Malagamve,
Aged about 46 years,
R/o Suttatti, Raibag Tq.,
Belgaum Dist. 591 317.
19 Sri Nagappa,
S/o Shivagundappa Padannavar,
Aged about 36 years,
R/o Chikkabagewadi,
Bailhongal Taluk,
Belgaum Dist. 591 102.
20 Sri Srikantha,
S/o Yallappa Thuloji,
Aged about 37 years,
R/o Chikkabagewadi,
Bailahongal Tq.,
Belgaum Dist. 591 102.
5
21 Sri Annappa,
S/o Parisa Patil,
Aged about 31 years,
R/o Alakhanoor, Raibag Tq.,
Belgaum Dist. 591 317. ... Petitioners.
(By Sri V.R. Datar, Adv.)
And:
1 The State of Karnataka,
Education Department,
By its Secretary, M.S.Bldg.,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2 The Commissioner of Public Instructions,
Nrupatunga Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
3 The Deputy Director of Public Instructions,
Office of the Deputy Director of Public Instructions,
Chikkodi, Belgaum Dist.591 201.
4 The Block Education Officer,
Raibag Taluk,
Belgaum Dist. 591 317.
5 The President,
Siddeshwara Education Society,
Morab, Raibag Tq.,
Belgaum Dist. 591 338.
6 Basaveshwara Primary School,
Saunsuddi Village,
Raibag Taluk,
Belgaum Dist. 591 317.
6
7 Ajith Kumar Bane Primary School,
Morab Village, Raibag Tq.,
Belgaum Dist. 591 338.
8 Laxmidevi Kannada Primary School,
Suttatti Village, Raibag Village,
Belgaum Dist. 591 317.
9 Shri Sanjeevkumar,
S/o Siddalinga Bane,
Aged about 41 years,
Occ; Business, r/o Morab,
Raibag Tq., Belgaum Dist.591 338.
10 The Additional Commissioner for
Public Instructions, Office of Commissioner
Of Public Instructions, Dharwad - 1. .... Respondents.
(By Smt. K.Vidyavathi, AGA for R1 to R4 & R10
Sri Shivaraj P. Mudhol, Adv. For R5 to R9)
---
These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India, praying to direct respondent Nos.1 to 4 to
sanction approval to their teaching posts as permanent teachers in
respondents school i.e. R6 to 8 by considering their representation
dated 25.4.2012, etc.
These Writ petitions coming on for Orders this day, the
Court passed the following:
7
ORDER
The petitioners contend that they are working as Primary School Teachers in respondent Nos.6, 7 and 8 schools run by Siddeshwara Education Society, Morab, Raibag Taluk, Belgaum District. It is further contended that they have been working as such for the past over 4 to 5 years in the said schools. The management of the school has forwarded the proposal to appoint them as permanent teachers in the said schools for approval to the 4th respondent, who inturn has sent the said proposal to respondent No.10. Respondent No.10 has inturn sent the said proposal to respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. The contention of the petitioners is that 9th respondent was elected as the President of the aforesaid Education Society in April, 2012. Thereafter, he has got issued the notification at Annexure 'M' for appointment of the teachers in the aforesaid three institutions though there was no vacancy. That is why they have filed these writ petitions seeking the following reliefs: 8
"(a) Direct the respondents 1 to 4 to sanction approval to their teaching posts as permanent teachers in respondents school i.e. respondents 6, 7 and 8 by considering their representation dated 25.4.2012 vide Annexures N, N-1 and N-2 by issuing a writ of mandamus or writ order direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 and /or 227 of Constitution of India for considering their representation for sanction of approval as permanent teachers and sanction of grant in aid salary in the interest of justice and equity.
(b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for records pertaining to sanction/approval of petitioners as permanent teachers under grant in aid orders/Rules from respondents No.1 to 4 and on perusal of the same be pleased to issue writ of certiorari or direction in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India quashing recruitment notice dated 5.5.2012 issued by respondent No.5 in Prajavani paper dated 7.5.2012 vide Annexure M in the interest of justice and equity."9
3. It appears that the 9th respondent has sent letter requesting the Hon'ble Chief Minister not to approve the appointment of the petitioners in the aforesaid three schools and to return the proposal sent by the society to the 5th respondent. On the basis of the said letter, the State Government has sent a letter dated 18.1.2012 to respondent No.10 to return the proposal to the 5th respondent and on the basis of the said letter, 10th respondent has sent letter to respondent No.3 to return the proposal to the 5th respondent, a copy of which was marked to respondent No.4. On the basis of the said directions, the 4th respondent has returned the proposal to the 5th respondent and an endorsement was made in that letter to that effect.
4. On 2.7.2012, this Court directed the learned AGA to secure the records from respondent No.3 and to place it before the Court.
10
5. Learned Counsel for the parties submit that on 4.7.2012, learned AGA has made a submission that the records have been returned to the 9th respondent and an acknowledgment has been taken to that effect on 4.5.2012. Therefore, learned AGA was directed to secure the records from respondent No.9 and produce them in this case. Accordingly, respondent No.9 has produced the records before this Court, which are in the custody of this Court as of now.
6. Respondent Nos.10 and 4 are present before the Court.
7. It is clear from the materials on record that the Society in question has submitted the proposal to the competent authority for approval of appointment of the petitioners as primary school teachers in respondent Nos.6, 7 and 8 schools run by the 5th respondent Society. The contention of Sri Shivaraj P. Mudhol, learned Counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 9 is that petitioners have not been working as teachers in the aforesaid schools as they were not appointed by the management. Learned Counsel further 11 submits that pursuant to the notification at Annexure 'M', the management has appointed 16 teachers, who are working in the schools.
8. On the other hand, Sri V.R.Datar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that petitioners have been working in the said schools for the past over 4 to 5 years. That is why, the management has forwarded proposal for approval to the competent authority.
9. Whether the petitioners were appointed as teachers or not is a disputed question of fact. Tenth respondent has to consider all these aspects on the basis of the relevant records of the school. It is also necessary to note here that when the management has sent the proposal for consideration to the competent authorities, they could not have returned those proposals to the management. They should have passed orders on those proposals in accordance with law. 12
10. Since respondent Nos.4 and 10 are present before the Court, it is just and proper to return the proposals, which are in the custody of this Court to the 10th respondent. Accordingly, the proposals are returned to the 10th respondent and the 10th respondent has acknowledged the receipt of the same and has accordingly signed the order sheet.
11. At the same time, the 5th respondent should not appoint teachers in furtherance of the notification at Annexure 'M' pending disposal of the matter relating to approval of appointment of petitioners in the 6th, 7th and 8th respondent-schools .
12. In the light of the above discussions, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Tenth respondent is directed to consider the aforesaid proposal in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.13
(ii) Liberty is reserved to the tenth respondent to secure the records from respondent No.5-Society for his perusal. It is made clear that the 5th respondent has to furnish the original records to the 10th respondent as and when he directs for its production for the purpose of consideration of the proposal.
(iii) The tenth respondent is directed to forward the proposal to the competent authority along with his report for consideration in accordance with law.
(iv) The recruitment notice issued by the fifth respondent dated 5.5.2012 published in 'Prajavani' Kannada daily news paper on 7.5.2012 at Annexure 'M' is hereby quashed.
(v) Writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE.
BMM/-