IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT EHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 11'?" DAY OF AUGUST 2009
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE MANJULA CHE_:;';LUx§fi f
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE B.:V}mVN'AGA4RATH:N.A *5
Cw-A 1\$O.6144/2OO9i'1«(M:if ) '* T
Between:
1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR. ..
OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
BELGAUM 1. =
2. THE JOINT DIRECTQR OF" -- If V
PUBLIC IsNTRuC'TTQNs 2;
BELGAUTM'"DI".f1.L5IO}§§ C C %
BELGAUM . . .. PETITIONERS
(By Sri. N.DINES.I:~I EEA(§;'V.(§(§V'I}:Af}Vt)CATE)
And: 'V ' ' ' .
"s121VLA§<1\):"AN"sT1§rG JASEASING BULAKE
',AG:E"M.AJ.O'I?.,' 'OCC: TEACHING
r«2.,/<)._sAM.PAQA_C.N.~~
TQ BAILHOI\§'(}AE1.
;TI~«IE r.{:i,agN;A:{}"ET/TENT
~ M ., OF RURAL 'EDUCATION SOCIETY
' usA1vHJ--.AGAoN BY ITS CHAIRMAN
3. KIRAN SHREEKANT ASODE
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS ,
occ: P E TEACHER, R/O SAMPAGAON _
TALUK: BAILHONGAL .. REsPoNnENf:s.' - A.
(By Sri. V M SHEELVANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
This writ appeal is filed u/ s 4 the
Court Act, praying to set aside the:'A:.or:jfer'il dt,
passed in Misc.W.No.60165/2009», and etc.
This appeal coming on for prélirriinary"laea1'ing2:'thils day,
Manjula Chellur J ., delivered the {o.11o'Win'g_;_ --
~
By consent hearing and
disposed of by this it i l
2. We 'have: the. impugned order which is
an interim porder--«,o1'v Single Judge. It is not in
dispute 1lél.'i12.aoo7, the 1st respondent herein has
joined dtity_ :.i’s.V:Working since then, but his salary is not
theejoilrse of submissions we note that the post
vtrlzich the V15?’ respondent was appointed by selection was in
4: an advertisement calling for the applications for
l post. According to the counsel for the 18′ respondent
the post of the respondent was with regard to the physicai
education teacher and according to him the said post was not
similar to the cadre of other teachers in the
According to him there was only __one_ po’stii”‘of_’;v ix
education teacher and the cadre was;”:.en£{ire’ly iidifferenit
other teachers who were teaching regL1lar_ subj~e'<':ts. "like " V
English, Economics, History etc. Ap_.HVo'wever, we'-need not go
into the details of the case"–l5eca1_1_séivth'eii,':l_rria»tter is pending
before the learned Single J11dg'e~.ii': prerogative
of learned Singlewhether itmwas a single post
which was and roster would be
applicable or:"not.i_ Aoefore us is the direction of
the learned_Singl"e~J:'ud:ge to ipéiy the salary from 12.12.2007
stthjectp rvesulitliiioftihe writ petition. We note that
subsecjtienitrs in the month of July 2009 after
v7.hr–e'ceivin flthe resoltition of the mana ement askin for the
g g g
' payiithe salary to the 1st respondent, the department
i._to..hiave regularised or approved his post with effect
_,JL"ily 2009. When the matter was still pending
consideration of the learned Single Judge in the writ
proceedings, we are unable to understand
department could have first of all approved or 0.
said post. Apparently there is no. ._suchA.pfori"
regularisation of the post by the learned1._Single~.eludgel
time of interim order which is under c'hal1eng~e "l:)_:'e'i'o~rej us.'-V
Having regard to all these facts eVeri"otherwiseihavirig regard
to the fact that no stay _of was granted in
favour of the appellant. bound to
pay salary with? the day on which the
let respondient' it these circumstances,
we do not to interfere with the interim
order of the learned and the appeal is dismissed.
of 2009 is filed praying to condone the
delay oit'»..,§l4 filing the appeal. Misc.W.60863 of 2009 is
" pan"ci._r.l'elay is condoned.
Misc.W.60767 of 2009 does not survive for consid§;15Va”c’i4e¢}h.§.L:”‘ ‘
4. In the Eight of the dismissal of the writ..ja§§_’pi§:’alA,
. 41:2: ,2,”
V
‘.%.,,}i.Q:_; ‘
‘5? rs ‘2:”r= ‘
.§
‘*n._.: