Karnataka High Court
Sri Kanaka Sc/St Vidya Samasthe (R) vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 April, 2014
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 02nd DAY OF APRIL 2014
BEFORE
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
WRIT PETITION No.41772 OF 2013 (EDN-REG-P)
BETWEEN:
Sri. Kanka SC/ST Vidya Samasthe ®,
Represented by its Secretary,
Sri. Raghavendra Gokula D.V,
Siddanamatha,
Channagiri Taluk,
Davanagere District - 577 527.
...PETITIONER
(By Shri. S. Rajagopal , Senior Advocate for Shri. Vijaya
Raghava Sarathy H.M, Advocate )
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Principal Secretary,
Department of Primary and Secondary
Education, M.S.Building,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The Commissioner,
Department of Public Instructions,
Nrupathunga Road,
2
Bangalore - 560 001.
3. The Director of Public Instructions,
(Secondary Education),
Office of the Commissioner of
Public Instructions,
Nrupathunga Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
4. The Deputy Director of Public
Instructions,
Davanagere District,
Davanagere.
5. The Block Education Officer,
Department of Primary and
Secondary Education,
Channagiri,
Davanagere District - 577 213.
6. Sri. G.S. Jagadeesha,
Son of Sri. C.H. Shivamurhty,
Claiming to be incharge,
Head Master,
Sri. Siddarameshwara High School,
Siddanamatha, Channagiri Taluk,
Davanagere District.
7. Sri. M.P. Eshwarappa,
Son of Sri. Parameshwarappa,
Assistant Master,
Sri. Siddarameshwara High School,
Siddanamatha, Channagiri Taluk,
Davanagere District.
3
8. Sri. P. Pathi Naik,
Son of Sri. Peekya Naik,
Assistant Master,
Sri. Siddarameshwara High School,
Siddanamatha, Channagiri Taluk,
Davanagere District.
9. Sri. S. Rajendra Kumar,
Son of Sri. Siddaramappa,
Assistant Master,
Sri. Siddarameshwara High School,
Siddanamatha, Channagiri Taluk,
Davanagere District.
10. Sri. H.B. Kenchnabanappa,
Son of Sri. Banappa,
Assistant Master,
Sri. Siddarameshwara High School,
Siddanamatha, Channagiri Taluk,
Davanagere District.
11. Sri. A.V. Guruswamy,
Son of Sri. Veerappa,
Physical Director (AM)
Sri. Siddarameshwara High School,
Siddanamatha, Channagiri Taluk,
Davanagere District.
12. Smt. S. Nirmala,
Daughter of Sri. Siddappa,
Craft Teachers (AM)
Sri. Siddarameshwara High School,
Siddanamatha, Channagiri Taluk,
Davanagere District.
...RESPONDENTS
4
(By Shri. Parthasarathi M.S., Advocate for
Caveator/Respondent Nos. 6 to 12
Smt. Prathima Honnapur, Government Pleader for Respondent
Nos. 1 to 5
*****
This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order
dated 31.8.2013 vide Annexure-A passed by the third
respondent as the same is unsustainable and to direct the third
respondent to renew the recognition to Sri. Siddarameshwar
High School, Siddanamata, Channagiri Taluk, run and
administered by the petitioner Kanaka SC/ST society for a
period of one year as it was extend to the other private
institutions vide Annexure-Y to develop the necessary
infrastructure and cadre strength of students.
This Writ Petition coming on for Hearing this day, the
court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioner is a registered Society formed by persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes of Davangere District, in the year 1991. The object of the Society was to run educational institutions for the benefit of their people. A School in the name of Kanaka Vidya Samasthe at Siddanamata, was said to have been started in the year 1992. 5 This was after obtaining the necessary permission and sanction of the State Government. It was a Kannada Medium School.
As the School was established in a remote village and in accordance with the policy of the State government, since the petitioner was entitled to Salary grant, a proposal was made to the government seeking such grant. Pursuant to which, an inspection was said to have been conducted to ascertain the infra structure available with the School and having regard to its consistent student strength of 45 per section, since inception, the District Level Inspection Committee, which conducted the inspection had made a favourable report dated 3.9.2007. The State Government in turn, is said to have admitted the School to salary grant by an order dated 3.1.2009.
It is the case of the petitioner that in course of time during the year 2011, there were some teachers, who had differences with the management, leading to their disrupting the smooth functioning of the School. This entailed the petitioner requesting the respondents to take action against the said 6 teachers. But however, it transpires that the respondents had issued a show cause notice to the petitioner, on the basis of the allegations said to have been made by the errant teachers. It is the petitioner's case that once the school was admitted to salary grant, the teachers were intent on seeking their transfer as excess teachers to some other School, which was not so remotely situated and hence were seeking to create a situation as if the School was no longer being run for want of students and infrastructure. And having learnt about the clandestine activities of the said teachers in seeking to spread bad propaganda about the School amongst the parents of the children studying at the School, the petitioner is said to have initiated disciplinary proceedings against the errant teachers. Especially since it was found that they were encouraging parents to take their children out of the school by issuing transfer certificates on the ground that the School was no longer functioning. It is in this regard two teachers, namely G.S.Jagadish and S.Rajendra Kumar had been placed under 7 suspension. Though prior approval of such action was sought of the respondents, no steps were taken in that regard.
Hence, the Society had replied to the Show cause notice issued explaining the situation. But it transpires that the third respondent had passed an order dated 3.12.2012 under Section 39 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'KE Act', for brevity), withdrawing the recognition of the School. The said order having been passed without hearing the petitioner, the same was challenged by way of a writ petition in WP 49914/2012, the same was allowed and the said order dated 3.12.2012 was quashed by an order dated 12.12.2012 and the petitioner having been directed to approach the third respondent and to place all relevant material to demonstrate that there was no circumstance which warranted the withdrawal of such recognition and the petitioner having done so, which has been supported by the statements of the teachers of the School, who do not have any issues with the management and also by the villagers, who have specifically 8 pleaded that there is no other School within five kilometers of the present School, it transpires that on the basis of biased and incorrect reports of the Block Education Officer (BEO), namely that there was no student strength and that the teachers had remained absent etc., the third respondent is said to have passed a further Order dated 31.8.2013, withdrawing recognition. It is that which is under challenge in the present writ petition.
The learned Senior Advocate, Shri S. Rajagopal appearing on behalf of the counsel for the petitioner would contend that in terms of Section 39(e) of the KE Act, if the private management of an institution fails to comply with orders and if there is failure to remedy the defects, if any, as regards the infra-structure, academic discipline, or such other deficiency, within such time, as may be specified by the competent authority, the competent authority may withdraw recognition after issuing a show cause notice to enable the institution to make a representation. In the instant case, there was no such prior notice before withdrawal of the recognition. 9 Hence, the impugned order is violative of Section 39 of the KE Act.
It is further contended that in terms of Section 105 of the KE Act, no private institution shall be closed down or discontinued unless a notice of not less than one academic year and indicating the intention to close down is given to the governing council. On the other hand, in the instant case, the fourth respondent appears to have made a recommendation to close down the school on the basis of the disgruntled teachers referred to herein above and the third respondent has acted on it. It is pointed out that the School never suffered from lack of cadre strength through out its existence from the year 1992 and it is only in the year 2012 that the cadre strength had fallen and that was only on account of a vilification campaign maliciously carried on by the disgruntled teachers having forced many students to seek transfer to other schools, in order to further their selfish designs. It is ironical that the third respondent has 10 also taken note of this circumstance, but has yet not thought it fit to provide time to increase the cadre strength.
Respondents 6 to 12 have entered appearance through counsel and have filed statement of objections. It is contended that the present petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has the remedy of an appeal under Section 130 of the KE Act. The said respondents have at length denied the petition averments and have stated their version of the controversy.
The State Government has filed its statement of objections to justify the impugned order. It is contended as follows:-
The petitioner - school was admitted to conditional grant on 3.1.2009. Pursuant to the grant, the petitioner was offered three years time to streamline the high school and meet the required standards as per the KE Act and the Karnataka Education Institutions (Recognition of Primary and Secondary Schools) Rules, 1999.11
However, the petitioner was unable to maintain the school building and provide library, laboratory, computer lab, sports materials, teaching aids, infrastructure, drinking water, hygiene, sanitary conditions, within the notified time, thereby grossly violating and not complying with the notification of grant vide Government Order No.ED 280 SEP 2008, Bangalore dated 3.1.2009 issued by the respondent no.1. On 20.6.2012, the head master of the said institution admitted in writing that the admission and attendance during the year 2012-13 was zero. Considering the violations of Rules, the BEO - fifth respondent visited the school on 20.6.2012, 3.7.2012 and again on 5.7.2012 and indicated that the conditions of the school are in a highly deplorable state resulting in zero student attendance.
That the respondent no.4 - the Deputy Director of Public Instructions, Davanagere District, by his letter dated 20.7.2012 has stated that due to pathetic conditions of the school building, with no drinking water, toilets, infrastructure, library, laboratory, sports materials, the overall condition of the school 12 is in highly dilapidated state. Further, that due to non- cooperation and non-coordination between the management and the teachers, the activities of the school have come to a standstill resulting in zero student attendance. Inspite of timely release of grants from 3.1.2009 by the department to uphold the constitutional obligation of providing free and compulsory education to the children, the petitioner has failed to fulfil its obligation. It is contended that pursuant to the furnishing of a report by the respondent no.5, to respondent no.4, respondent no.4 had recommended for withdrawal of recognition granted to the petitioner, as per letter dated 20.7.2012, under Section 39 of the KE Act.
In the meantime, the petitioner - society by its letter dated 3.9.2009 admitted that the condition of the school is in a dilapidated condition and therefore, requested for extension of time.
That since under the Act and the Rules, there is no provision for granting extension of time and in view of the 13 petitioner being unable to comply with the conditions under the Notification of grant vide Government Order No.ED 280 SEP 2008 Bangalore dated 3.1.2009, the respondent no.3 issued order dated 3.12.2012, withdrawing the recognition of the school, taking into consideration the zero attendance of the students and violations of law and the pathetic condition of the school. Being aggrieved by the order dated 3.12.2012 issued by respondent no.3, the petitioner filed a writ petition in WP 49914/2012, which was disposed of on 10.12.2012, with a direction to the respondent herein to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner after having observed that there was violation of principles of natural justice and accordingly, the order dated 3.12.2012 passed by respondent no.3 came to be set aside.
That as per the order of this court, the respondent no.3 has offered ample opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as on 10.5.2013, 7.6.2013, 4.7.2013 and 12.7.2013 and again, after conducting inspection of the school on 20.8.2013, the impugned 14 order came to be passed on 31.8.2013. Therefore, it is only after providing an opportunity of hearing in accordance with the KE Act and the 1999 Rules, the impugned order has been passed.
Rule 4 of the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Recognition of Primary and Secondary Schools) Rules 1999, which pertains to condition to grant recognition to an Education Institution, stipulates that the competent authority shall after verification, ensure and satisfy itself that every education institution seeking recognition, has maintained minimum strength of 40 students in respect of lower primary, 100 students in respect of upper primary schools and 25 students in each standard in respect of High school. It is contended that the above Rule has not been complied with by the petitioner. The petitioner does not have minimum required student attendance of 25 in respect of 8th, 9th and 10th standards. Further, as per Annexure - IV to Rule 3 of the Karnataka Educational Institution (Recruitment and Terms and Conditions of Service of Employees in Private Aided Primary and Secondary 15 Educational Institutions) Rules, 1999, the minimum strength in each section from Standard VIII to Standard X shall be 25. Therefore the petitioner ought to possess the mandatory attendance of 25 students in each section of each class, which has not been maintained by the petitioner.
In the above facts and circumstances and having regard to the further circumstances that transpired during the pendency of this petition, it is kept in view that pursuant to the impugned order, it transpires that the teaching staff had been deputed to other aided institutions. This had occasioned even prior to the impugned order passed by this court staying the operation of the impugned order. Pursuant to the interim order, the government sought to recall the teachers who had been deputed to other institutions. The respondents 6 to 12 then approached this court and sought that they be posted elsewhere as the petitioner society was inimically disposed towards them and that they have no employment on account of lack of student strength and that the Petitioner had also not paid them. After 16 some contest, the interim order was modified to permit the said respondents to be deputed elsewhere subject to the result of the petition. The petitioner claims that it had to manage the academic year 2013-14 with the assistance of teachers temporarily employed by it in the light of the above development.
In so far as the grievance of the petitioner is concerned, it is evident that the State government has not established that there was compliance with Section 39(2) of the KE Act. The said Section is extracted hereunder for ready reference:
"39.....................
(a)..................
(b)...................
(c)...................
(d)...................
(e)...................
(f)...................
(2) Where the State Government is of the opinion that the recognition granted to any local authority institution or private educational institution should, in the public interest be withdrawn, they may after giving to the local authority or as the case may be the Governing 17 Council of the institution one month's notice to make any representation, withdraw by notification the recognition granted to the said institution."
There is no indication that the petitioner has been put on notice to comply with the several shortcomings that may have been found on inspection of the school premises and its records. There is reference only to the conditions of grant and non- compliance thereof and the hearing said to have been afforded to the petitioner pursuant to the order of this court.
The academic year 2013-14 has almost come to a close. The Respondents 6 to 12 have been posted elsewhere and are content with the same. It would therefore be in the fitness of things if the petitioner is placed on notice to ensure compliance with all shortcomings within a reasonable time from the commencement of the next academic year, 2014-15. It would be appropriate if that date is set as 15.8.2014.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. The petitioner shall be in a position to 18 demonstrate to the satisfaction of the respondents at such inspection that shall be conducted immediately after 15.8.2014, that there are no shortcomings and that all conditions to be met for continued recognition are duly complied with. Failing which the respondents may take such action as is warranted in law.
As there is no possibility of a reconciliation between the Petitioner and respondents 6 to 12, the said respondents shall be continued in employment in such places as they are now posted.
Sd/-
JUDGE nv*