Karnataka High Court
Friends Cultural Educational Trust vs State Of Karnataka on 25 October, 2016
Author: B.Veerappa
Bench: B. Veerappa
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2016
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA
WRIT PETITION No. 23952/2015 (EDN-RES)
BETWEEN:
FRIENDS CULTURAL EDUCATIONAL TRUST,
2ND MAIN ROAD, THYAGARAJANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560028.
BY ITS CHAIRMAN, SRI. T. LAKSHMIPATHY
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI H. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION,
M.S. BUILDING,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR PUBLIC
INSTRUCTIONS, PRIMARY AND SECONDARY
EDUCATION, NEW PUBLIC OFFICES,
NRUPATUNGA ROAD,
BANGALORE-560001.
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
BANGALORE SOUTH DISTRICT, KALASIPALYA,
BANGALORE-560002.
4. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
SECONDARY EDUCATION NEW PUBLIC OFFICES,
NRUPATUNGA ROAD,
BANGALORE-560001.
2
5. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER
SOUTH RANGE-I,
JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560011.
6. THE SENIOR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
URDU AND OTHER MINORITY SCHOOLS,
COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
NRUPATUNGA ROAD,
BANGALORE-560001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PRAMODHINI KISHAN, HCGP )
...
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
2ND RESPONDENT TO APPROVE THE APPOINTMENT OF
SMT.T.L.BHAGYALAKHMI TO THE VACANT AIDED POST OF
ENGLISH TEACHER IN THE SRI.VENKATESHWARA CHENDIL
KUMARANS KANNADA AND TAMIL HIGH SCHOOL,
THYAGARAJANAGARA, BANGALORE, BEING RUN BY THE
PETITIONER AND FURTHER DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO
PAY TO THE PETITIONER THE GRANT -IN-AID PAYABLE TO THE
SAID AIDED POST OF ENGLISH TEACHER FROM 22.5.2014
ONWARDS.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The Management is before this Court praying for issue of writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to approve the appointment of Smt. T.L. Bhagyalakshmi to the Vacant Aided Post of English Teacher in the Sri 3 Venkateshwara Chendil Kumarans Kannada and Tamil High School, Thyagarajanagara, Bangalore being run by the petitioner and further a direction to the respondents to pay the grant-in-aid payable to the said aided post of English Teacher since 22.5.2014 onwards.
2. It is the case of the petitioner before this Court that the institution run by the it is Sri Venkateshwara Chendil Kumarans Kannada and Tamil High School, Thyagarajanagara, Bangalore which is an aided institution by the order dated 29.4.1987 by the State Government. In the said school, vacancy arose to the post of English teacher due to the death of the incumbent teacher viz., one Smt. Padmini on 3.5.2008. Therefore, the 4th respondent issued an endorsement on 3.9.2010 that the petitioner-school is required to follow the roaster policy by filling up the said vacancy and accordingly, the 2nd respondent issued a memo dated 6.1.2012 stating that the vacancy created by death of 4 said Smt. Padmini is required to be filled up by a person belonging to the scheduled caste.
3. The said endorsement/notice was the subject matter of W.P.No.9744/2012 before this Court and this Court after hearing both the parties, by the order dated 25.10.2013 quashed the notification dated 3.9.2010 - Annexure-J made therein and permitted the petitioner to make appointment to the vacancy that was created on its own, provided the criteria and eligibility conditions which are otherwise prescribed for teacher recommended by the State Government, are complied with. The direction issued by the State Government to the effect that all linguistic minority institutions shall comply with the roster policy shall not apply to the petitioner in view of the above decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sindhi Education Society -vs- Chief Secretary, Government of NCT of New Delhi reported in 5 (2010)8 SCC 49. Consequently, that portion of Annexure-J also stood quashed.
4. In pursuance of the order passed by this Court as stated supra, the petitioner-institution has issued a notification in Prajavani Newspaper dated 13.11.2013 notifying the vacancy and calling upon the candidates, for which three candidates applied and the interview was held on 9.12.2013, in which the candidate by name Smt. T.L. Bhagyalakshmi was selected for the vacant post and accordingly, the petitioner-institution issued the appointment order on 27.1.2014 and she has reported to duty and is rendering her service in the petitioner's school since 10.2.2014. Thereafter, the petitioner wrote a letter dated 12.2.2014 to the 5th respondent seeking approval of the said appointment. The 5th respondent after inspecting the school, being satisfied with the facilities provided by the Management has written a letter dated 21.2.2014 to the 3rd 6 respondent requesting for approval of appointment of the said T.L. Bhagyalakshmi. The 3rd respondent in turn has written a letter dated 25.3.2014 to the 6th respondent stating that the Legal Cell has written a letter dated 8.1.2014 nominating the said 6th respondent as the concerned Officer in the matter of filing the Writ Appeal against the order passed in W.P.No.9744/2012 but there was no further action taken in the matter. Again the petitioner wrote a letter dated 30.8.2014 to respondent Nos.3, 5 and 6 bringing all these fact to their notice, but they have not taken any action in the matter of appointment of Smt. T.L. Bhagyalakshmi inspite of the order passed by this Court in Civil Contempt Petition before this Court in C.C.C.No.111/2015 reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent authority. It is further case of the petitioner that in spite of the representation dated 21.2.2014, Annexure-H, for approval of the appointment of Smt. T.L. Bhagyalakshmi, till today, the respondents 7 especially respondent No.4 - The Director of Public Instructions has not considered the same and passed any orders till today and therefore, the petitioner is before this Court for the relief sought for.
5. The respondents having not filed any objections to the main writ petition.
6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties to the lis.
7. Sri H. Pavana Chandra Shetty, learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that in spite of the order passed by this Court as per Annexure-A and in contempt petition in C.C.C.No.111/2015 as per Annexure-L, the respondents have not taken any steps to consider the representation made by the petitioner dated 21.2.2014 till today. Therefore, he sought to allow the writ petition.
8
8. Per contra, Smt. Pramodhini Kishan, learned HCGP appearing for the respondents on instructions fairly submits that the respondents will consider the representation vide Annexure-H dated 21.2.2014, if not already considered and passed orders in accordance with law. The said submission is placed on record.
9. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned Counsel for the parties, the only point that arises for consideration is:
Whether the petitioner is entitled for a writ of mandamus as sought for in the present writ petition in the facts and circumstances of the present case?
10. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is running the institution in the name and style Sri Venkateshwara Chendil Kumarans Kannada and Tamil High School, Thyagarajanagara, Bangalore. According to it, it is a minority institution recognized by the State Government by an order dated 29.4.1987. It is also not 9 in dispute that on the endorsement issued by the 4th respondent on 3.9.2010, which is the subject matter in W.P.No. 9744/2012, this Court after hearing both parties, permitted the petitioner to make appointment to the vacancy that was created on its own, provided the criteria and eligibility conditions, which are otherwise prescribed for teacher recommended by the State Government, are complied with. It is the case of the petitioner before this Court that in pursuance of the observation made by this Court on 25th October, 2013, the Management after following the procedure as contemplated has selected Smt. T.L. Bhagyalakshmi to the vacancy post that was created and the proposal was sent to the respondents for approval of the said post. But in spite of the recommendation made by the petitioner, till today, the 4th respondent has not considered the same nor has passed any orders. 10
11. It is not in dispute that the appointment made in pursuance of the observations made by this Court , they approached the 5th respondent, and 5th respondent wrote a letter to the 3rd respondent requesting for approval of the appointment of Smt. T.L. Bhagyalakshmi and 3rd respondent has written the letter to the 6th respondent stating that the Legal Cell has recommended for approval of appointment of Smt. T.L. Bhagyalakshmi and to pay to the petitioner the grant-in-aid payable to the said post of English Teacher from 22.5.2014, but the same has not been considered by the 4th respondent. Therefore the point raised in the present writ petition has to be answered in the affirmative holding that the petitioner has made out a case for issue of writ of mandamus as prayed for and accordingly, it is answered.
12. In view of the aforesaid reasons, writ petition is allowed. The respondents in particular, respondent 11 No.4 is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner as per Annexure-H dated 21.2.2014 for approval of the appointment of Smt. T.L. Bhagyalakshmi to the vacant aided post of English Teacher in the Sri Venkateshwara Chendil Kumarans Kannada and Tamil High School, Thyagarajanagara, Bangalore and for grant-in-aid payable to the said post from 22.5.2014 and pass orders in accordance with law within an outer limit of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
13. In view of the dismissal of the main matter itself, consideration of I.A.2/2015 for direction does not survive.
Sd/-
JUDGE Nsu/-