High Court Karnataka High Court

Anil Kumar Bhimaji Deshpande vs The State Of Karnataka Rep By Its … on 7 July, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Anil Kumar Bhimaji Deshpande vs The State Of Karnataka Rep By Its … on 7 July, 2008
Author: N.K.Patil
2.

(av M1s.vAsoEv:Aséo«:,iArE$) -_   u

i

N THE HiGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA

mm: mas THE ?'"" DAY OF JULY 2008
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTJCE N.K. PATi_l;.:''''*~'.' : 
wnrr PETITJON NO. 33313 of 2002 !,s;aI-:8) {  

BETWEEN:

1. 5:22. mas. KUMAR BHSMAJI DESHPANDE,  *
SIO. BHSMAJI, AGED 37 YEARS,   A
P.E. TEACHER,   ._
JAGADAMBA KARNATAKA GIRLS HSGHER
PRSMARY SCHOOL, _   K
HITTANAHALLI, swans: TA:.,t_.:K,a:aAPua E}l$":"-. 

sRa.R.M..1osH:, _. 2  *  "  
SIC}. MANOHAR JOSE-I3. A_G&"£Z> 30"YE.EAR$., ' V'
ASSlSTANTTEACHEFi.,     
JAG'-ADAMBA :<ARt~wAi<A ems HIGHER "
PREMARYSCHQOL, "   , 
H:TTANAHAu.:;...s:ND'en.TAL-in * _  
suapuauasr  . . a   '
PETITIONERS

AND; _. .

1.

3» A

V '  ._$E<:RETARv_ BIJAPUR.
 {Ev 312:. M. KUMAR, ASA FOR R3 TO 3;

:THE' é'r.4né or ;§iARr;m«TAxA REPRESENTED

BY--!_TS SECRETARY; 'EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
(PRIrs-!ARi'{. ANC3. $&CONGAE€Y EDUCATION}
MS. BUILEBING, ' A 'V ' "

,,._W . gANc;A:.ofzE.'saQ  '; _ A.

THE DIREC;§QR;\QF i5'%2IMARY EDUCAUGN IN

.1'jv»*;VtJ '1"~.r nmecroa OF PUBLSC iNSTRUCTiONS,
' BIJAF-1VJ_R'£3!3TR%CT,BIJAPUR.

 aézée JAGADAMBA VIDYAVARDHAKA SANGHA,

YAMBH, IND! TALUK, REPRESENTED BY ITS
RESPONDENTS

R4 — SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

3

December 1996 and his appointment has been approved
on 11*” March 1997 and even now, they are working in

the respective Schools. it is their specific case

Court that, in spite of forwarding flue

the second respondent through the ” »

where they are working, the .

considered fine said recornrr:§endation__ any’

decision on flue same,’ in einiiiajr rna;ttere,’tl*lie”V§C3ourt had
issued a direction in3e47/1992 stating
mat, the reepondenti1:$tete”1′{sha_il:f’ on the basis of
inepections’V’.V°’icrr;§§L;$feéi;….pgreuant to its circular dated 15′

June Private Educational Institution

do no’t«…_o.oesess the minimum infrastructural

.’Vfacilitiee’lpreecribed for such institutions in terms of the

and the ruim framed under Education Act and

Ainitie7te_1A’3~prcceedinge under Section 53 of the Act for

of aid to such institutions, etc. Accordingly,

Department has under taken verification of the

appointment of all the Teachers at Bijapur and Gulbarga

..,.____~___«_w__WmNWm_.

4

and after hearing respective parties, the second

respondent has passed the order on 17″‘ Januaafy~–.»2_O01

declaring that, 210 teachers are appointed es.

and flwey are eligible to continue in

teachers have been treated; not». “I ”

accordance with Rules. -The heroes

pefitioners are found st in
the iist of eligibie’*–.V:'{e_ache:fs itdep;-spared by second

respondent. V <_:i'*t.__is ioefitioners that, in

spite respondent has neither released
the seiary. of nor considered their request.

Therefore!' Were. constrained to redress their

of giving representations and

it vseverai requests Waugh the institutions

are working. in'. spite of that, the said

it "austerity has failed to take a final dmision. Therefore,

Atpetitioners are constrained to redress flieir grievance

it V' H before dais Court by presenting the instant writ petition.

A

I/–~—«~_.~._.,

S

3.” I have heard learned counsel appearing for
petitioners and learned Addifional Government Advocate

appearing for respondents 1 to 3.

4. After cerefu! peruse! of the materiei

file and the statement of objecéiioris filed by L1;

to 3 dated 20*” October
respondents have stated Eegehriy
appointed teachers has been
placed beforethe (Primary

for orders in the matter.

Further, ‘eitdis smted that, the names of “dress

petitioners V.h_eve inoiuded and the eatery of such

‘ are reteesed in View of the order to be

, second rmpondent. Therefore, in View of

{he made in the statement of objecfions filed

V ” by responden’ts, wifiaout expressing any opinion on merits

hdofhflve case, to meet flue ends ofjuwoe, it would suffice for

‘ this Court to issue appropriate direction to second

respondent to consider the request of petitioners for

sd/..

6

release of the salary and to take appropriate decision in

accordance with iaw.

5. Accordingiy, the writ petition filed

is disposed of with a direction to smond..i’esperj:der’2fV’tcV’i»

consider the request of petitions: for..reie.§.se .of~.se»!’e~afiy and

take appropriate dmision 4…ecccrde’nce visyq

already taken any decision, possible,
at any rate, within a from the date

of receipt of epccpy ii

aeeawatiaes, the writ petition fiied by

pefitionere is iofie j

Judge