High Court Karnataka High Court

Basappa S/O Yamanappa Daddaimani vs State Of Karnataka Repby Its Secy on 30 May, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Basappa S/O Yamanappa Daddaimani vs State Of Karnataka Repby Its Secy on 30 May, 2008
Author: B.V.Nagarathna
W 1 _

IN $33 HIGH CGURT 0? KARNATAKA AT §AKéaLcRE,'

DATED THIS $33 30"'£%j:Mfiy22QQ3 .Kfa'""

BEFORE m

ma HON'BLE Mrs.JUSTICE____I§"V I=IE§GAR?{L'HNA 

WRIT PETITEON No}1§S74!ggG?{EQg}Ra3»9)

BETWEEN _ A-H_-.'
BASA?PA s/0 EAMENAEPA DAEDAIMANI 
AGED 62 YEARS, Gcc:AGR:cU;TuRE> '
R/O sHURA9AL1,*:Q3$gMKaAfip1'
DIST:BAGALKOT"~j  i_ 'xf

R .* '='* ...PETIITONER

{BY SRI AMI: Kazg; Ab?.,jg' 

ANS

V;',S?A?E,0EfKARNA?AKA
}» REP ax grs JQINT SECRETARY
*EDUCAT1GE EEPARTMENT
M;S.BUIDLENG
BANGALQRE--1

"CLMMI§SIONER or PUBLIC
_VENSfRUCTIONS DEPARTMENT
".M;S.BUIDLING, BgmsALQRE

¢md,V

 "3~*9IREcToR OF PUBLIC

INSTRUCTIONS DEPARTMENT
M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE



...3...

directing the respondents_ to' permit »thex c

respondent to run a school as per Rnnexure*A§x 7f

2. Accerdimg to the petitioner, eho is a
resident of Shurpaiisviiiefieg his son is studying
in Government High scg¢§13at_g§¢;§§;i (respondent
Ne.6) whi§h~ fies eeenigestehiiehefii by Government
Order ‘feted 21.8.2057. The
saidsschooir éecora§a§ to the petitioner, has the
requisite viefreetrfietfire} and students fer the
academies yeere&#DO%%d8 were admitted and are

preseCutingirH_the;r studies as per the

e’ooemnhitation dated 10.9.2007 issued, by the 5″

h,re$poeeentmrhto the 6

M respondent ~Scheol.

Aocordingiy, respondent No.6 has admitted ll

v”xstudents to VII: standard as per the register of

‘;Vafimission preduced as Annexuremb to the writ

_H§etitien. It appears that an inspection of the

school was conducted by the members of the local

Gram Panchayath and the inspection re art is

_ 5 _

shifting of the said sc:hr:>o1_,…»t.o’

the students of both the \}’il3c§:a:;.es’it>:qIi’lir’

travel a great di3tan’oe*–.._VwhichV’ 2-gill?’iv.j;’eo};}ardiize.ti’

their education. It is that an
per Annexure–Ei, 03% H Shurpali
village is higher at Tubachi
viilage ought to be
continuett instead of being

shifteautoiinbéghiivillageI”i

5. Per V’ _ c’Qn’t.r’a, the learned Government

Advfooaite has*–_.aubmitted that one to inadvertence,

both and Tubachi were considered to be

therefore, the school was located

at! Sh’£1ipe°li, but later on, there has been a

xrecti’f.-ictation of the order at Annexure–A by the

at Annexuz:e–H which is shown at Sl.No.8 in

___the said annezmre whereby, it was intended that

the school Should be located at Tubachi and not

at Shurpeli. The learned Government Advocate has

,1}

-3…

another institution and therefore,_thegsohooi3at_h’

Tuhachi has been commenced having VVEIE _to X

stanfiards where already x49 Students =haveV5been-‘

admitted in VIII’ standardr tit iia,i therefore,

contended that sinoe tho;aohggt*at Shurpali was
started up to VIII t:tafiaaré°i$fi;f” as per the
aforementiehefifiacheméfjfinnernresgfi and {S are in
order ‘Iii’: h gygftiition i S clevoi d of

merits.

1%,”; It hfis “seen !from Annexure~A that by
order aatedv 21r8,2Q§7, Government High Schools

were sanctioned from the academic year 2007-68 in

.baokward, more backward and most backward taluks

uhof the grate and accordingly, vide Sl.No.13, High

Sohoolh was commenced at “Tubachi-Shurpali” in

i.Jamkhanai taiuk. Ito was thereafter” noted that

iafubachi and Shurpali are two different villages

h”‘tM_and they are not one and the same Village.

Accordingly, the order éated 12.9.2007

….g….

{Annexure~H} was issued .mGdifying:”fi@né2n:e«Au¥.

ordert dated 21.8.2007 and lit igaé natéfiédffitnét

the Government High Schéci was to be ¢Cmmenged at,t

Tubachi village. ‘Hewevgt} by tnéngitutnuant to
Annexure-A, in the ébhQnl1at”Snntpnli village, 11
admissions were madé; tifie:飧£§{F it is the
contentiofli §§fi fig? fllééinéa”-Cnunsel for the
fietitionét {fi§é{~»£fléfi5£4é;’ of amendment at
AnnegfiféFH in £%5 in#iawLiWH
?:°:’Inii§yia§§ini§n, the said contention
cannot Be acnéptéfi in View of the fact that the

namfi bf thé”nVii1age was mistakenly stated as

» VTgba¢hi»$hu:pali” as it was considered to be one

ltvillgfiétwhéiéas, in fact, they are two different

villagéS*iand it was the intention of the

uizespofidents mauthorities to commence a High

i’gSchdol at Tubachi and not at Sharpali.

_§heref0re, an amendment was made by order dated

i2.9.2007 at Annexuremfi and subsequently,

/”/