Karnataka High Court
Sri Udayakumar K P vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 April, 2014
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
Bench: A.N. Venugopala Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NOS.5394-5431/2014 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI UDAYAKUMAR K P
S/O K M PUTTAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
WORKING AS I/C PRINCIPAL
VIDYODAYA GIRLS P.U. COLLEGE
T NARASIPURA
MYSORE DISTRICT.
2. SMT. KALPANA N
D/O NANJUNDASWAMY B S
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
WORKING AS LECTURER IN ENGLISH
VIDYODAYA GIRLS' P.U. COLLEGE
T NARASIPURA
MYSORE DISTRICT.
3. SRI SOMANNA
S/O LATE BASAVE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
WORKING AS LECTURER IN GEOGRAPHY
VIDYODAYA GIRLS' P.U. COLLEGE
T NARASIPURA
MYSORE DISTRICT.
4. SRI KUMARASWAMY
S/O LATE BASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
WORKING AS LECTURER
VIDYODAYA GIRLS' P.U. COLLEGE
T NARASIPURA
2
MYSORE DISTRICT.
5. SRI RAVI M B
S/O BASAVAIAH M N
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
WORKING AS LECTURER
VIDYODAYA GIRLS' P.U. COLLEGE
T NARASIPURA
MYSORE DISTRICT.
6. SRI B J RAVIKUMAR
S/O JAYASHANKARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
WORKING AS SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT
VIDYODAYA GIRLS' P.U. COLLEGE
T NARASIPURA
MYSORE DISTRICT.
7. SRI M SHIVARAJU
S/O MARIGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
WORKING AS LECTURER IN ECONOMICS
GANDHI P U COLLEGE
BEKKALALE, MADDUR TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT,
8. SRI M NINGARAJU
S/O MANCHEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
WORKING AS LECTURER IN
POLITICAL SCIENCE
GANDHI P U COLLEGE
BEKKALALE, MADDUR TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT.
9. SRI RAMESHA S
S/O SIDDEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
WORKING AS LECTURER IN ENGLISH
GANDHI P U COLLEGE
BEKKALALE, MADDUR TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT.
3
10. DR Y KRISHNAPPA
S/O YALAKKAIAH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
WORKING AS LECTURER IN KANNADA
GANDHI P U COLLEGE
BEKKALALE, MADDUR TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT.
11. SRI JAYAPPA D
S/O DEVALANAIK
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
WORKING AS SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT
NISARGA P.U. COLLEGE
NAZEER NAGARA
HARAPANAHALLI TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
12. SRI SHANKARA NAYAKA M
S/O TEEKYA NAIK
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
WORKING AS LECTURER IN SOCIOLOGY
NISARGA P.U. COLLEGE
NAZEER NAGARA
HARAPANAHALLI TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
13. C D SOMASHEKHARAPPA
S/O DURUGANNA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
WORKING AS LECTURER IN ENGLISH
SRI JOGESWARA P U COLLEGE
A G ROAD, CHALLAKERE TOWN
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
14. SMT. ANASUYAMMA S
D/O SATYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
WORKING AS CLERK-CUM-TYPIST
SRI JOGESWARA P U COLLEGE
A G ROAD, CHALLAKERE TOWN
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
4
15. SRI MAHESH M
S/O L MAHADEVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
WORKING AS LECTURER IN ENGLISH
S.S.P.U. COLLEGE
BELAKAVADI, MALAVALLI TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT.
16. SRI MAHADEVAPPA S
S/O LATE S SIDDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
WORKING AS LECTURER IN GEOGRAPHY
S.S.P.U. COLLEGE
BELAKAVADI, MALAVALLI TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT.
17. SRI M NAGENDRA
S/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
WORKING AS LECTURER IN ECONOMICS
S.S.P.U. COLLEGE
BELAKAVADI, MALAVALLI TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT.
18. SRI GURAPPA
S/O LATE PUTTABASAVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
WORKING AS LECTURER IN KANNADA
S.S.P.U. COLLEGE
BELAKAVADI, MALAVALLI TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT.
19. SRI M S MAHADEVAPRASAD
S/O SHIVALINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
WORKING AS LECTURER IN POLITICAL SCIENCE
S.S.P.U. COLLEGE, BELAKAVADI
MALAVALLI TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT.
20. SRI KRISHNAMURTHY D
S/O DODDADASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
5
WORKING AS CLERK-CUM-TYPIST
S.J.M.P.U. COLLEGE
CHICKJAJUR, HOLAKERE TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
21. SRI B N SOMBEGOWDA
S/O NINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
WORKING AS LECTURER IN SOCIOLOGY
PRATHIBHA P U COLLEGE, ARSIKERE
HASSAN DISTRICT.
22. SRI DHARMAPALA H D
S/O DEVAIAH H D
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
WORKING AS LECTURER IN CHEMISTRY
PRATHIBHA P U COLLEGE, ARSIKERE
HASSAN DISTRICT.
23. SRI NAGESH C K
S/O LATE M KARIYAPPA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
WORKING AS LIBRARIAN
PRATHIBHA P U COLLEGE, ARSIKERE
HASSAN DISTRICT.
24. SRI K KOTRA GOUDA
S/O K GURUBASAVANA GOUDA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
WORKING AS LECTURER IN ELECTRONICS
M.E.S. P.U. COLLEGE
B.T.M. 2ND STAGE,
BANGALORE.
25. SRI MAHESHA M
S/O MALLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
WORKING AS LECTURER
J.S.S.P.U. COLLEGE
DODDAKADANOOR,
HOLENARASIPURA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT.
6
26. SRI DATTA PRAKASH B S
S/O SHREENIVASA RAO D R
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
WORKING AS LECTURER IN ENGLISH
SRI VIVEKANANDA P U COLLEGE
TURUVEKERE, TUMKUR DISTRICT.
27. SRI SIDDAIAH
S/O KENCHEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
WORKING AS LECTURER
SRI VIVEKANANDA P U COLLEGE
TURUVEKERE, TUMKUR DISTRICT.
28. SMT. SUMATHI V K
W/O LAKSHMIKANTHA NAIDU B J
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
W/AS LECTURER IN COMMERCE
MOUNTAIN VIEW PRE-UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE, VIDYANAGARA
CHIKKAMAGALORE.
29. MRS SHAHEENA PARVEEN
W/O MOHAMED ALI
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
WORKING AS LECTUER IN URDU
MOUNTAIN VIEW PRE-UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE, VIDYANAGARA
CHIKKAMAGALORE.
30. SRI VIVEKA PRABHU B
S/O JANARDHAN PRABHU B
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
WORKING AS LECTURER IN HINDI
MOUNTAIN VIEW PRE-UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE, VIDYANAGARA
CHIKKAMAGALORE.
31. SRI MUTHU VARADARAJAN
S/O KRISHNAIAH B
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
WORKING AS PRINCIPAL
ANANDA P.U. COLLEGE
7
BANDAPPA COLONY, B K NAGAR,
YESHWANTHAPUR
BANGALORE-560 022.
32. SRI KRISHNAIAH C
S/O CHOWDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
WORING AS LECTURER
ANANDA P.U. COLLEGE
BANDAPPA COLONY, B K NAGAR
YESHWANTHAPUR,
BANGALORE - 560 022.
33. SRI CHIKKA RANGAIAH V R
S/O RANGAIAH K
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
WORING AS LECTURER
ANANDA P.U. COLLEGE
BANDAPPA COLONY, B K NAGAR
YESHWANTHAPUR
BANGALORE - 560 022.
34. SRI SHIVAPPA H S
S/O SHANKARA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
WORING AS LECTURER
ANANDA P.U. COLLEGE
BANDAPPA COLONY, B K NAGAR
YESHWANTHAPUR,
BANGALORE - 560 022.
35. SRI PRADEEP R
S/O RAMALINGEGOWDA D
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
WORKING AS LECTURER IN ENGLISH
ANANDA P U COLLEGE
BANDAPPA COLONY, B K NAGAR
YESHWANTHAPUR,
BANGALORE - 560 022.
36. SMT. BHAGYARATHANAMMA
W/O SHASHIKANTH A C
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
8
WORKING AS SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT
ANANDA P U COLLEGE
BANDAPPA COLONY, B K NAGAR
YESHWANTHAPUR, BANGALORE - 560 022.
37. SMT. SUJATHA H S
W/O MELAPPA T S
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
WORKING AS LECTURER
ANANDA P U COLLEGE
BANDAPPA COLONY, B K NAGAR
YESHWANTHAPUR,
BANGALORE- 560 022.
38. SRI CHANDRAMMA T H
W/O PATIL G S
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
WORKING AS LECTURER
ANANDA P U COLLEGE
BANDAPPA COLONY, B K NAGAR
YESHWANTHAPUR,
BANGALORE - 560 022. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI PADMANABHA R, 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 DIRECTOR FOR PRE-UNIVERSITY
EDUCATION
18TH CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD
MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE - 560 012.
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR PRE-UNIVERSITY
EDUCATION, B P WADIA ROAD
BASAVANAGUDI
BANGALORE - 560 004.
9
4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR PRE-UNIVERSITY
EDUCATION
BANGALORE NORTH DISTRICT
BANGALORE.
5. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR PRE-UNIVERSITY
EDUCATION
MYSORE DISTRICT
MYSORE.
6. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR PRE-UNIVERSITY
EDUCATION
MANDYA DISTRICT
MANDYA.
7. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR PRE-UNIVERSITY
EDUCATION
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT
DAVANAGERE.
8. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR PRE-UNIVERSITY
EDUCATION
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT,
CHITRADURGA.
9. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR PRE-UNIVERSITY
EDUCATION
HASSAN DISTRICT
HASSAN.
10. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR PRE-UNIVERSITY
EDUCATION
TUMKUR DISTRICT
TUMKUR.
11. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR PRE-UNIVERSITY
EDUCATION
CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT
CHICKMAGALUR. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. M.S.PRATHIMA, HCGP )
10
THESE PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT
THE RESPONDENTS TO RECKON AND COUNT THE PAST
SERVICE RENDERED BY THE PETITIONERS FROM THE DATE OF
THEIR INITIAL APPOINTMENTS UP TO THE DATE OF APPROVAL
OF THEIR APPOINTMENT WITH AID RESPECTIVELY FOR THE
PURPOSE OF FIXATION OF PAY SCALE, SENIORITY,
INCREMENTS INCLUDING TBA, PENSIONARY BENEFITS AND
OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL SERVICE BENEFITS, ETC
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioners are teaching and non-teaching staff of private aided educational institutions. According to the petitioners, their appointments were approved by respondent No.1. While approving the appointment, a condition having been imposed that the past service rendered from the date of appointment till the appointee was admitted for salary grant will be counted only for the purpose of leave and pension and thereby denied the notional annual increments, these writ petitions were filed on 30.01.2014, to direct the respondents 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 posts were admitted to grant-in-aid 11 i.e., for the purpose of computing the pay scale, seniority and other consequential service benefits.
2. Sri R.Padmanabha, learned advocate for the petitioners contended that the writ petitions filed by some of the teachers working in different institutions, seeking to reckon their services from the date of their initial appointments up to the date of approval for the purpose of fixation of pay scale, seniority and all other benefits having been allowed and the writ appeals and the Special Leave Petitions filed by the Government having been dismissed, as is evident from Annexures - Z25 to Z30, the respondents have an obligation to extend the same benefit to the petitioners. He submitted that, since the respondent No.1 has not extended the said benefits to the petitioners, there is violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
3. Perused the writ record.
12
4. The petitioners have not made a demand with the respondents seeking to perform the legal duty. Annexure-Z24 is a legal notice and not a representation. Submission of Sri R.Padmanabha, to treat Annexure-Z24 as a representation made by the petitioners cannot be accepted. The demand must be in writing by the petitioners with all service particulars, so that the authority can secure the relevant records and take decision in the matter. Since the petitioners have not made distinct demand with the respondents by furnishing the full service particulars, with regard to the claims made in these writ petitions, petitions filed for issue of writ of mandamus cannot be entertained.
5. In A. Prabhakara Reddy vs. The State of Karnataka and others, 1980 (1) KLJ 456, with regard to issuance of writ of mandamus to the authorities, it has been held as follows:
"9. As a rule this Court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution will issue a Writ of mandamus to the Authorities like the 1st and 2nd respondents if they failed to discharge 13 their duties arising out of legal obligations, in spite of a written demand. It is only when such duties are cast on the authorities and they fail to perform them, the right to seek a Writ of Mandamus arises in favour of the citizen."
6. In Sri D.L. Chowda Reddy and others vs. The State of Karnataka, by its Secretary, Department of Primary Education and others, ILR 2013 Kar 5085, considering the object of Writ of Mandamus and criteria for issue of Writ of Mandamus, in a case relating to the identical claim, it was held as follows:
"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 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."
7. In SARASWATI INDUSTRIAL SYNDICATE LTD. ETC., vs. UNION OF INDIA, AIR 1975 SC 460, Apex Court has held as follows:
"24...... As a general rule writ of mandamus will not be granted unless the party complained of has known what it was he was required 14 to do, so that he had the means of considering whether or not he should comply, and it must be shown by evidence that there was a distinct demand of that which the party seeking the mandamus desires to enforce, and that, that demand was met by a refusal."
8. In Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation vs. Subhash Sindhi Cooperative Housing Society, Jaipur and Others, (2013) 5 SCC 427, Apex Court has held that while granting a writ, the Court must make every effort to ensure from the averments of the writ petition, there exists proper pleadings. With regard to the writ of mandamus, it has been held as follows:
"24......In order to maintain the writ of mandamus, the first and foremost requirement is that the petition must not be frivolous, and must be filed in good faith. Additionally, the applicant must make a demand which is clear, plain and unambiguous. It must be made to an officer having the requisite authority to perform the act demanded. Furthermore, the authority against whom mandamus is issued, should have rejected the demand earlier. Therefore, a demand and its subsequent refusal, either by words, or by conduct, are necessary to satisfy the court that the opposite party is determined to ignore the demand of the applicant with respect to the enforcement of his legal right......."15
The ratio of the above decision was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation and another vs. Diamond & Gem Development Corporation Limited and another, (2013) 5 SCC 470.
9. Sri R.Padmanabha, conceded that prior to filing of these writ petitions, the petitioners did not submit individual written representations to the respondents seeking to extend the service benefits on par with the relief, which the teachers working in other institutions have got by virtue of the orders passed vide Annexures - Z25 to Z30.
10. The petitioners having not made distinct demand in writing with competent authority having the requisite authority to perform the demand and there being no opportunity for the competent authority to examine the claims and take decision in the matters, these writ petitions for issue of writ of mandamus to the respondents, 16 in view of the ratio of law in the decisions, noticed supra, cannot be entertained.
In the result, writ petitions are rejected. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to approach office of the authority having the requisite authority to perform the act demanded and for extending benefits. If the competent authority does not act in the matter within a reasonable period, it is open to the petitioners to seek relief, if any, in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE ca