In mm mm court or mmrnu A1' _
mmn mm mm 30!! mtg: _ "
ma nonrnm me. nmmx >
ma 1-xorrnm mnormn
wnrr APPEAL 1§§._ 2 ' -'
nmwnm:
1. THE S'FATE«:O33' KA-.'tzzqA'1"_m;;~,.H--
BY % %
DEPARTMENT or E:;)ug:':ATsoN,
DR AMEEDIQXR-.VE'EDH}"'--. ' -
BANG-ALDRE
2. THE nIR'£~croR,oF«vc€3LLEGzA'rE
E:-ibucmrxofi JR KARNATAKA,
~ _ r)'1:'~F;c:£; or Tnmraumtsstonaa
A «_F'C*R 'COLLB}GlATE EDUCATION
BMGA1GRE~--~ 560 009. APPELLANTS.
" X (By ézniavanu KAREDDY, GA)
2.;-. 'THE IV-SANGALORE JESUIT
* -EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY FOR EMICATTON
31*. Josapws COLLEGE,
BANGALORE «- 560 02?.
"W
_I#oLLo"vt{IN0:
2. FA.E)R.ABROSE PINTO
AGED 54 YEARS,
S] 0 LATE LINCENT PINTO
WORKING AS PRWCIPAL
ST. JOSEPR COLLEGE,
LALBAGH ROAD
BANGALORE - 550 we.
(By Sri.V.R.Sarathy, h'
Sri.J.Prash.mth, Adv. for R--2,=__v
Respondeznt No. 1 - Sc1vV¢d)"
a,*_*_t,0«,*';«.y
Tms WRET APPEAL Is 1r:Lr«;.0i;z~II3:.+:~.;2 Sscruorfi 01? THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COUI?£*«--_E.CP'._Pf§AYiN§3r sm' ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE wg1'- /2005 DATED
02.02.2007. 'M
ms.wm 0»: FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING 1100. 0Av,'.a.cm:¢§;»c1mr cum-zen, DELIVERED 'ms:
_ _ _ _ . -
.' Karcddy, learned Government Advocate for the
_appel]a1a1t0 4' Sri.V.R.Sarathy, learned counsel for respondent
‘T consent, arguments heard.
The State and its functionaries are befon: us challenging the
éfiorrectness, validity and propxtic-may of the order wasted by that:
learned Single Judge in W.P.l’¥o.13841/2005 deciied on
‘E
02.02.2007 in a petition preferred by the 2
herein.
3. Petitionem had approached the ‘p1~j:j13zee;;
the zespondent No.2 herein be
Joseph College (Arts and here the
salary according to with
eflect from 01.08.2()§)3. to clause
III under the management as
appearing in 63.10.1981 came to the
oonch1sio1t;1V”t11e1_i:A was trazlsfcrred from we
institutionVv’A’te! being run under the same
flagship. -of i.e., Bangaloze Jesuit Educational
‘vS0ciptj11.”:’T&111s”tI1e leeiiiedysingle Judge was of the opmion that he
salary under the grant-in~aid scheme. The
— VV to be allowed mm’ directions as co-nta’med
14′ .ui’n__1:he oxdefimpugeed hezein.
the pendency of the aforesaid appeal, it has not been
‘]_c1::ep{ated before us that the order passed by the learned Sing’ le
VA has been fully implemented in as much as respondent No.2
E
hasbeennotonlybccnmleased his salmyas
of Principal Grade 1, but that is being paid to is
also to be noted that respondent No.2 is lcfi
months as the present age of oer
s11P°I’annuation. ‘ A V’
5. in the light at’ the am of the
consiiemd opinion virtuafiy been
rendered mfimumxm, is devoid of merit
since the relief with refexm
to the _ hereby dismissed’ as such,
but with napmei ~ 4.
w
sd_2- ,
Acting Chlef In-She
Sd/-
Iudge
eé