Karnataka High Court
Sri Ramachandra Rao vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 January, 2021
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M. Nagaprasanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.21371 OF 2015 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. Sri. Ramachandra Rao,
S/o. V. Narayana Rao,
Aged about 44 years,
Working as Assistant Teacher,
Sri. Ramakrishna Higher
Primary School,
Kampli, Hospet Taluk,
Bellary District.
R/at 11/249,
Opposite Ramakrishna School,
Kampli, Hospet Taluk,
Bellary District.
2. Sri. K. Ramesh,
S/o. K. Sathyanatha,
Aged about 46 years,
Working as Assistant Teacher,
Sri. Ramakrishna Higher
Primary School, Kampli,
Hospet Taluk,
Bellary District.
R/at Rathna Nilaya,
14th Ward, Main Road, Kampli,
Hospet Taluk, Bellary District.
2
3. Sri. S. Sathya Bodha,
S/o. R.H. Sandur,
Aged about 30 Years,
Working as Assistant Teacher,
Sri. Ramakrishna Higher
Primary School, Kampli,
Hospet Taluk,
Bellary District.
R/at 11th Ward, Tengnakai Street,
Kampli, Hospet Taluk,
Bellary District.
4. Sri. Mochi Venkatesh,
S/o. M. Kanakappa,
Aged about 38 Years,
Working as Assistant Teacher
Sri. Ramakrishna Higher Primary School,
Kampli, Hospet Taluk,
Bellary District.
Residing at 19th Ward,
Opposite Maramma Temple,
Kampli Hospet Taluk,
Bellary District.
5. Kum. Saraswathi,
D/o. Thimmappa,
Aged about 34 years,
Working As Assistant Teacher,
Sri. Ramakrishna Higher Primary School,
Kampli, Hospet Taluk,
Bellary District.
Residing at Kottureshwara Camp,
Near Government Bus Depot,
Gangavathi,
Koppal District. ... Petitioners
3
(By Sri. Thyagaraja S., Advocate for
Sri. R. Padmanabha, Advocates (Physical Hearing))
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Secretary,
Department of Education,
(Primary and Secondary),
M.S. Building, Bengaluru - 560 001.
2. The Additional Commissioner for
Public Instructions,
Ewan - Shahi Extension,
Gulbarga - 585 101.
3. The Director for Public Instructions,
Office of the Commissioner for
Public Instructions,
Ewan - Shahi Extension,
Gulbarga - 585 101.
4. The Deputy Director for
Public Instructions,
Bellary District,
Bellary - 583 101.
5. The Block Education Officer,
Hospet Taluk, Hospet,
Bellary District - 583 201.
6. The Secretary,
Sri Ramakrishna Vidya Vardha Sangha (R),
Kampli, Hospet Taluk,
Bellary District - 583 132. ... Respondents
(By Smt. M.C. Nagashree, AGA for R1 to R5
(Physical Hearing);
4
Sri. V.R. Sarathy, Advocate for R6 (Physical Hearing))
This Writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India praying to direct the R1 to 5 to
pay the salary payable to the petitioners from June 2011
till today by taking further effective and necessary steps
pursuant to communication letter dated 02.01.2015 vide
Annexure - P, communication letter dated 20.02.2015 vide
Annexure - Q and communication letter dated 05.03.2015
vide Annexure - R and etc.
This Writ petition coming on for 'Preliminary hearing
in 'B' Group' this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
Petitioners in this writ petition has sought for a direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent Nos.2 to 5 to pay salary to the petitioners between June 2011 till 14.05.2015, the date on which the writ petition was filed and further, to take necessary steps for redeployment of their services from 6th respondent- Institution to any other aided institution.
2. Heard the learned counsel, Sri.S.Thyagaraja, appearing for the petitioners; the 5 learned AGA, Smt. M.C. Nagashree, appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and the learned counsel, Sri.V.R. Sarathy, appearing for respondent No.6.
3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that, all the petitioners were appointed on various dates between 01.06.1987 to 27.06.1992 by the 6th respondent-Institution. It transpires that in the year 2008, proceedings with regard to admission of the 6th respondent-Institution to the grant-in-aid were taken up by the Government, which resulted in an order dated 28.05.2008, admitting the 6th respondent-Institution to grant-in- aid subject to certain conditions. Condition Nos.1 and 4 in the order of admission to grant-in-aid reads as follows:
"1. £ÉêÀÄPÁw ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ²PÀët PÁAiÉÄÝAiÀÄ J¯Áè µÀgÀvÀÄÛ/¤§AzsÀ£ÉUÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß ¥ÀÆgÉʹgÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ. «zÁåyðUÀ¼À ¸ÀASÁ姮ªÀ£ÀÄß PÁAiÀÄÄÝPÆ É ¼ÀîvÀPÌÀ zÄÀ Ý ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÁªÀiÁ£ÀåªÁV «¢ü¸ÀĪÀ µÀgÀvÄÀ Û/¤§AzsÀ£ÉUÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß «¢ü¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ.6
4. ¸ÀzÀj ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄÄ E£ÀÄß ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À°è ¸ÀéAvÀ PÀlÖqÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DlzÀ ªÉÄÊzÁ£À ºÁUÀÆ E¤ßvÀgÉà ªÀÄÆ®¨sÆ À vÀ ¸Ë®¨sÀåUÀ¼À£ÀÄß MzÀV¹PÉƼÀîvÀPÌÀ zÄÀ Ý. F ¸Ë®¨såÀ ªÀ£ÀÄß MzÀV¹PÉƼÀî®Ä «¥sÀ®ªÁzÀ°è ¸ÀºÁAiÀiÁ£ÀÄzÁ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤°è¸À¯ÁUÀĪÀÅzÀÄ."
4. In terms of the afore-extracted conditions stipulated while admitting the 6th respondent- Institution to grant-in-aid, it is seen that the appointment of the petitioners had to be in accordance with law and, within three years from the date of admission to grant-in-aid, the 6th respondent- Institution had to develop the necessary infrastructure for continuation of the grant, failing which, it was ordered that the government would stop the grant.
5. It further transpires that the 6th respondent-Institution failed to adhere to condition No.4 in the development of infrastructure for continuing of the grant from the hands of the 7 government, which lead the State Government in withdrawing the grant by invoking Condition No.30 of the order admitting the 6th respondent-Institution to grant-in-aid.
6. The petitioners claim to have submitted plethora of representations seeking salary to be paid till the date of closure of the 6th respondent-Institution and redeployment of their services in terms of the mandate under the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Recruitment and Terms and Conditions of Service of Employees in Private aided Primary and Secondary Educational Institutions) Rules, 1999. (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 1999', for short) Alleging non-consideration of these representations, the petitioners have knocked the doors of this Court seeking a direction for such consideration.
8
7. Learned AGA who appears for the respondent Nos.1 to 5 has filed objections and in furtherance of which would submit that proceedings were taken up for payment of salary in terms of order dated 06.02.2013, whereunder directions are issued by the Deputy Director of Public Instructions, to release salary for the petitioners from June 2011. Learned AGA also submits that salary upto the closure of the 6th respondent-Institution i.e., till 31.03.2014, would be paid by the State to the petitioners.
8. Sri. V.R. Sarathy, learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent - Institution would submit that the very appointment of the petitioners were contrary to the law, as no appointment orders were issued to the petitioners at the time of their appointment and no documents are furnished by the petitioners enabling the institution for recommendation of redeployment of their services and 9 he further contends that the petitioners were still probationers and never got the status of permanent employees.
9. The admitted facts are that the petitioners were appointed in between 01.06.1987 to 27.06.1992 in various capacities and various disciplines for the 6th respondent-Institution. Government on 28.05.2008 had admitted the institution to grant-in-aid subject to certain conditions and on non-compliance of such conditions, withdrew the grant-in-aid in terms of Condition No.30 of the order of admission to grant-in- aid. Condition 30 of the order admitting the institution to grant-in-aid reads as follows:
30. DqÀ½vÀ ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀĪÀgÄÀ M¥ÀàAzÀzÀ°è£À ºÁUÀÆ ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉüÀ¯ÁzÀ J¯Áè CxÀªÁ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà MAzÀÄ µÀgÀvÀÄÛ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤§AzsÀ£ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß G®èAX¹zÀgÉ CxÀªÁ vÀ¥ÄÀ à ¯ÉPÀÌ ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß CxÀªÁ vÀ¥ÄÀ à zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß MzÀV¹zÀgÉ CxÀªÁ vÀ¥ÄÀ à ªÀiÁ»wUÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß ¤ÃrzÀgÉ CxÀªÁ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ªÉÆøÀ J¸ÀVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ §AzÀ°è ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÅÀ DqÀ½vÀ ªÀÄAqÀ½UÉ CxÀªÁ £ËPÀgÀjUÉ F PÀgÁj£À ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ FUÁUÀ¯Éà ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁzÀ 10 ¥ÀÆtð CxÀªÁ ¨sÁUÀ±À: ¸ÀºÁAiÀiÁ£ÀÄzÁ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀj¸À¢gÀĪÀ CxÀªÁ vÀqÉ»rAiÀÄĪÀ ºÁUÀÆ F PÀgÁj£À ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÌÉ ¨ÁQ JAzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ §AzÀ ªÉƧ®UÀ£ÀÄß DqÀ½vÀ ªÀÄAqÀ½¬ÄAzÀ ªÀ¸Æ À ®Ä ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ C¢üPÁgÀªÀ£ÄÀ ß ºÉÆA¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
10. Therefore, on cumulative reading of condition Nos.1, 4 and 30 of the order of the government admitting the 6th respondent-Institution to grant-in-aid which document is amply clear that the infrastructure had to be developed by the 6th respondent-Institution within three years from the date of admission to grant, failing which, the government was at liberty to withdraw the grant which was given to the 6th respondent-Institution on 28.05.2008.
11. It is an admitted fact by the parties that the 6th respondent-Institution failed to adhere to Condition No.4 which was to develop the infrastructure, in accordance with the conditions 11 stipulated in the order of grant and having failed to do so, the government invoked its power under Condition No.30 of the order and withdrew the grants. It is after the withdrawal of the grants, the 6th respondent- Institution ended in closure on 31.03.2014. Thus, petitioners were not paid salary from June 2011 to 31.03.2014. In the light of the submissions made by the learned AGA, on instructions, and the proceedings dated 06.02.2013, the petitioners would be entitled and are to be paid salary from June 2011 to 31.03.2014.
12. The issue with regard to redeployment is hedged by certain conditions, as stipulated under the aforesaid Rules, 1999. Rule 7 and 10 of the Rules, 2020, reads as follows:
7. Period of probation:- A person appointed under these rules shall be on probation for a period of two years.12
Provided that the Appointing Authority may for the reasons to be recorded in writing extend the period of
probation by a further period of six months.
xxxxx
10. Retrenchment of employees:-
(1) An employee in an Institution may be retrenched by the Governing Council on the following grounds:-
(a) Where the teacher pupil ratio falls below the Standard Staffing Pattern specified in Annexure IV and V, as the case maybe.
(b) Due to changes relating to curriculum or student strength the workload of a teacher in a particular subject does not warrant his continuation in a particular institution.
(c) Closure of school due to lack of infrastructural facilities, dispute within the management or between management and teachers or any other reasons which may be recorded in writing.
(d) The employee does not possess the required educational qualification.13
(e) Where the Competent Authority or the Government deletes the post from salary grant for the reasons to be recorded in writing.
(f) For any of the above or for any other reason as the Government may deem fit which may be recorded in writing.
(2) The procedure to be followed by the Governing Council for retrenchment of an employee of a Institution shall be as follows:
(a) No employee of an Institution whose appointment has been approved with aid by the Department shall be retrenched by a Governing Council except for reasons specified in sub-
rule (1) or Section 98 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983.
(b) Where retrenchment is due to the employees becoming surplus, the junior-most employee in terms of seniority list maintained in accordance with the Rule 8 in the particular cadre and subject, shall be retrenched.
(c) A notice shall be issued to the employee proposed to be retrenched stating the reasons in writing for such retrenchment, giving the employee an opportunity to submit 14 his written statement of objection if any within fifteen days from the receipt of such notice.
(d) On receipt of the written objection received from the employee, he shall be afforded an opportunity to explain his stand in person if such request has been made by him/her in the written statement.
(e) The Governing Council shall on the basis of grounds so established send proposals to the Competent Authority.
(f) The Competent Authority shall on receipt of the proposal verify the same and after ascertaining the facts, that:-
(i) the reason stated in the proposal are in conformity with the reasons stated in sub-
rule(1);
(ii) that the employee is junior-
most as per the seniority list maintained by the management in the particular subject and cadre;
(iii) accord approval to the Governing Council to retrench the employee so proposed by giving one month's notice or 15 one month's salary in lieu of the same.
(g) The Competent Authority shall thereafter withdraw salary grant in respect of such excess / retrenched staff.
(3) If the Governing Council does not send the proposal, in accordance with clause
(e) of sub-rule (2) the Competent Authority may give directions to the Governing Council to send proposals within a period of one month, failing which salary grants in respect of the entire institution shall be withdrawn forthwith."
13. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners were placed on probation for a period of two years. No order was passed by the 6th respondent-Institution declaring the probation of the petitioners, to have completed satisfactorily, despite 2 years 6 months period that is indicated in Rule 7 of Rules, 1999. 16
14. Rule 10 of Rules, 1999, give a right to an employee to seek with their redeployment on closure of the school as mentioned in sub-clause (c) of Rule 10 of Rules, 1999. Therefore, the proceedings now will have to be initiated by 6th respondent-Institution, at the outset, to declare the services of the petitioners to be completed satisfactorily or otherwise and pass such confirmation orders in accordance with law. Further, once 6th respondent-Institution passes order concerning confirmation of the service of the petitioners, documents with regard to their redeployment in terms of Rule 10 of the Rules, 1999, is to be furnished to the State Government. The documents that are available with the 6th respondent
- Institution and also that could be sought from the hands of the petitioners should be furnished together to the State Government and the State Government would pass appropriate orders in terms of Rule 10 of 17 Rules, 1999, if the petitioners are entitled for such redeployment, in terms of Rules, 1999.
15. The State Government bearing in mind the observations made hereinabove shall pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law.
For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER Writ Petition is allowed-in-part.
(i) Petitioners are held entitled to salary between June 2011 to 31.03.2014 and the State Government is directed to release the salary pertaining to the petitioners, within four months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
(ii) Once documents are received from the hands of both, the petitioners and the 6th respondent-Institution with regard 18 to the redeployment of the services of the petitioners, the Government shall take necessary action in terms of Rule 10 of the said Rules, 1999 and pass appropriate orders, after assessment of the entitlement of the petitioners for such redeployment, in accordance with law, within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
Sd/-
JUDGE SV