IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER
BEFORE _ .A_
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE A. S. SOMPAI~INA.'_C;.
WRIT PETITION No. 29918 {I-VS"'-I_'1'«{'.IAOc§Ia;I\}II~:NT OF RANEBENNUR
TALUK --I:DUCA'I'1ON SOCIETY ®
7 REP. BYITS PRESIDENT
V .R..T.E.S'."'AR'I'S, SCIENCE AND
" COMMERCE COLLEGE CAMPUS
O' VRANIIBENNUR -- 581115 RESPONDENIS
..{1BY_§SRI RAGHAVENDRA GAYATPIRI, GP FOR R1 8: R2
SR1 C. H. JADHAV, ADV. FOR R3}
i
qr:
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was
eiigible to be promoted as Principal in the
respondent, institution, as per the guidelines
02.08.1995 indicated in the circular dated 1/iij9ia8ii’ie’t ‘
issued by the Government of Karnataka .as”,per
It is in that context, the petitionerohadxz
relief and had approached respond’ent
the petition under Sec.’ 133 of: the nidiardiiatakad Education
Act, 1983. Since the not been
appropriately order dated
17/4/2o0i’1″iiniitit.re.p§§te.iisréez/oti1iiii(s–aas), had directed
the 15: resporident.VVh’efrei’n*~totconsider and dispose of the
petition -Within” period.”-oft months. Subsequent there
‘ta, t:h’e {.1sfrespendeindtdddhas disposed of the petition filed
the”Vpetitioner,iherein. Though certain observations
which.are___vben.eiicia1 to the petitioner have been made in
” epordergthe “ultimate result is that the petition filed by
‘th’eA_pe-titioner has been dismissed.
«ii:
VII4VV1
4. In the background of the contention putforth
by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that he was
the senior most lecturer during March 1998 and was
therefore eligible to be promoted to the post
Principal as indicated in Clause (vi) of the-goVern’i’nei’i.tT’ i.
order dated 2 / 8 / 1995, the same_has_bee_n”by_ 0″ V
the 15′ respondent. A further”-pperusalhogf’
impugned in this petition’ll\Jsioi1V_ld indicate 15:-_~_’
respondent has taken note—-oi”v–thegA fact”–th.at..:§ one Sri
Sannabornmaji had asevl:l_in:¥Charge Principal
and ejienllltlioittghlproposalliztiaslputforth for appointing
him rejected on 7/ 3 / 2000, no
fresh. proposal was inaéie by the Management. In this
13* respondent has also noticed that even
petitioner was entitled to be appointed as
in the absence of proposal, appointment
coguldziiot be made which indicated that the lapse of the
0′ =.man’agen1ent had prejudiced the petitioner. Despite
-~-COII1lI1g to the said conclusion, 1*?’ respondent. on
i;
t5″
noticing that as on the date of passing of order by the
181 respondent, petitioner had attained the age of
superannuation, has thought it fit that no
could be issued to the 3rd respondent, ManAagen::i:ent’;~ ‘
appoint the petitioner as Prineipa_.1r
5. In my view, by the
respondent in fact has Come’.t_o~a prinia faeie eoneiusion V
that the petitioner was entitIed.’Vp_to’uth_e reiiea but could
not be granted only beeaiiseihmtained the age of
superannuation, in dciijteunistances, the 154
respondent heard the 3rd respondent and
come to a”e_o13e1us_ion whether the right which had
ace1*tieVdi’~to thne”i-ptetitiponer had been unjustiy denied to
___After recording a finding on that aspect
iofpthe the 15′ respondent had Come to the
eoneitisiionvdithat the right of the petitioner had been
denied though he was iegaliy entitied to,
i petitioner would have been entitled to the monetary
£2
-5-
benefits, which he would have earned if, in fact, h-e__ had
been appointed as the Principal when the.A..r’i§_§ht”o:’–had
accrued to him. Hence this aspect
requires re–considerat1’on by the””‘I>*3i.respondent, “a=fte’r
providing opportunity to the res’.poAn’dventn.urfln’–..
consideration, if the 15′ ‘r,é”sp0nd€n.t’vairrixfesat a
Conclusion that the ‘right to the
petitioner was _.~’.:1_:Vs»:’ivii}-respondent shall
issue an apprepri’ate respondent to
pay the be determined by
the with law.
6. °H_ei1eeVr the I” respondent to re–do
the rpatter invnitfrevrnariner stated above, the order dated
216/2 /’?,§)O3,.ev’iinpugned in this petition, stands quashed.
1\5/Latter st-arji_d,§uremitted to the 18′ respondent to restore
petit’ion’7i\Eo; 47/2000 on file. Issue notice to the 3*”
it ‘Xfrespondent herein and after hearing the petitioner as
é
weli as the 3%’ respondent, come to a conclusion i-:1,
accordance with law.
In terms of the above, the petition stands.dis.:§foséti:: .
of.
No order as to costs.
Rc’af–