IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGA'I}OfR_ E:A'
DATE!) THIS THE sré DAY 0:2 NOVEMSER: :"2Q(§S é "
PRESENT,w--_
THE I-ION'BLE MR. 13.13. D:NAKA;2Ar%_; TcH1E;«f1gIzJ§fs"1fi«9§}£.T
THE HON'BLE IyiR.JUSI{IC;§;_V._»G.SABHAHf1§
WRIT API;E1§L"-lSjC§_,;'3;34i$}';§'..(fl}{38 _
BETWEEN: i
1 GOLDE:'!;VALE,E'{4E{)U(31XTION TRUST
zU{:ATI_N,;_" : " '
PALACE ROAD,
BANGALORE- 1
DR Mi'SU_RYANARAYAN;Px._
S/0.sAMBA,.--MUm*:aY"-- ~
A.{}EVI)'A?3i,YEA*RS,NQL'-3.055;'"" '
IQTH CRO'SS,SWA«RI'éA_ NAGAR,
R{3BERTSONI3'ET;I§GFe22,
KOLARV.DIS'i.'RIf3T%,. %
; N CHQWDA REDDY
,3 ' :3. 3\§ARAYFsb!.A.PPA,
_ A(}E§)?~$.'? YEARS,NO.842,
' " .. V 3125 c§zGss,swARNA NAGAR,
§{GF=.22,'§<Q~LAR DISTRICT,
- '-»'LEcT1;--R}3R IN HISTORY
FEES'? GRADE COLLEGE,
Safe MADAN GOPAL
" '*~._S/O.LATE.CHINNAPPA PILLAI
= ._ A353 54 YEARS,NO. 1034/ 1,
1 1TH'A'CRGSS,SWARNA NAGAR,
KGF--22,KC}LAR DIS'FR'IC'I',
SR! ASHOK KRISHNAPPA
S] O. LATE.M.V. KRISHNAPPA,
AGE MAJOR,
GUTTAHALLI VILLAGE AND PGST,
BANGARPET TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICI'. I2_ESP;{§Ni)f%:'if«!?i'S: " 'V
(By Sri :B.VEERAPF'A, GA, )
THIS WRIT APPEAL is-4.%._FiL1éii:2."'U/sJ~"?i'..«1 0,1? {rat
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT 'PRAYINC. 'I?()_ _:Sl§',I' ASIDE
THE ORDER PASSED IN' THE w IT PETITIQN NO2296/02
DATED 14/03/2008. --.
This Writ Appeal vé 'g Hearing on
this day, SABHAHIT' J., gielivcziedfihc fo1lo§¢i§:g'}
%§ é¢nafi§§: 9
This ._ ._bff" the petitioners in WP,
No.2296/20¢; b¢Lng"';{ggf£e§}éc£ by the order dated 14.3.2003
wheygiri the Judge of this court has dismissed
declining to interfere with the order dated
1 '1:8v.=1_._by Joint Director of Coflegiats, Bangalore.
2. Petition No.2296/ 2002 was filed by the
H H 'A seeking for quashing of the artist dated
-_:sfs'.'1.2Oo2 passed by the Joint Dimctor of concgate
~E<iucatio11~respondcnt No.3 in the Writ petition wherein the:
third respondent has canceilcd the oréer of suspension of
\2~
the Principa1~Sri.M.Suryana1’ayana and lecturers V
Roddy in flistory and Madam Gopal in “E
pursuance of the order of the Comfi3is«sio1f1or
Education, Bangalore, dateci ._
that they shall continue in tho poé;t.as’t1jé}{ ‘boforc ” V
and it is further instructpti virfchaxwgo’ shall
hand over charge to Sn’. _V
3;’VIf1ViS’$3I.1:’73 that appellant No. 1 is
a Privofo Respondent No.4 was
working ao Lf?fincip’a1 é.r,1d’x§éspondents 5 and 6 are working
flvas in “t”ho…_II1sfimtion run by the first appellant.
.. .._under suspension pending enquiry. Being
‘ order of suspension, respondents 4 to
‘V 6 pfofofifidhvoppeal before the Commissioner of Collegiate
u x V’ ijfitiucgantioo and the second respondent disposed of the appeal
— fiiifiliofit proviciing an opportunity of hearing the potitrionersv
T éipoeflants herein on 7.11.2001 allowing the appeals filed by
: respondents 4 to 6 and set aside the orders of suspension
M}
dated 4.10.2001 and 6.18.2001. After re1nand,_
appeared before the second xespondent,,’v_”fi1e&»i./.11’tieL=iil”i b
objections, the appellants jusfified[:theb:oit§,e”r1
passed against respondents 6. :’botI:1°’:
paras” s and on appreciation of entire fizateiiéil record,
the appeals filed by L62.’ wezevvollotwed and
order of suspension were were
directed to their nespective
posts. __’£.’1e said order, Writ Petition
No.2296]i’2{)4’6£?. ‘ g the pendency of writ
pefition, the fi3€:t:it_io;ii.e3.*si%-agipellants reinstated respondents 4
to ii), xespecgiite wsts and on reinstatement of the
he attained the age of superannuation –
service and fifth respondent has continued
After reinstatement of xesmnsient No.6, the
i”.f;i:titij{ine1*s~appel1ants again suspended him on 12.1.2003
K the same was the subject matter ofW.P.No.17’153/2006.
\._i
4. It was contended by the learned Counsel appearing
for the appellants that the Management of the apgeHe1,tt~.is
not an authority as defined under the _
Act, 1983 (for short ‘the Act’), therfifore, the ”
respondents 4 to 6 under Section 1730 ‘b¢12m: £1;.;:
second respondent was not “and L.
order is without jurisdiction. ‘I’IréVV.:learr1edV”Si.::txgie’:Jddge after
hearing the counsel’ the Hdes and
scmfinieing . ‘C3.l__Zi– record he-id that the order
passed iii s;LfiP.N¢e.4:36e6:5e3)2001 dated 13/12/2001 has
becoggg» final.’ {E116 dvapiaellants have accepted the order
. ground of maintainabiiity of appeal
of the Act and also question of
juriedicfiondf the second respondent was not raised before
The order of suspeneion was passed on
T”‘r%;;.’1o.::z0o1 and 6.10.2091, both the parties have accepted the
‘Herder passed in W.P.Nos.42686«688/ 2001 participated in
the proceedings before the second respondent and
respondents 4 and 6 were reinstated as per the order and
\._2’»
7
fourth respondent retired from service aftsr
Fifth respondent continued in sexvigg a11d_–i’i”i§:: ~ V’ ‘A
mspondent who has been ncinstatéé ha~s .Be’éz,1. .’pl a’c<4§.s5;ed.”-t11A.é’..Writ petition. Being aggrieved by
‘% k”v%a1;e%%vL%;iis:c::ssa1 of A’c’}§1£:” ‘vswrr:r’it petition dated 14.3.2008, writ
/4 igsrcferred this appeal.
WE have hcani the iearned counsel appearing for
H u and the learned Government Advocate for the
.’ ii¢?:V5′;’;i)(ii1<it:13.ts.~
6. The learned counsel appeaxing for the appellants
submitted that the learned Single Judge was not justified in
Kr”
eonfirraitxg the order passed by the third respozifiieiit» .
Annexure-C to the Writ petition dated 18. ‘*
petition ought to have been alloweeci
order passed by the Joint Dizeetm” of Cev1_1ég.iate: V
?. On the other hand, 1ea4*eied”€«evemji1ent..vi-Ekdvocate
argued in support of the learned
Juége.
8. We .1:’;E;§re ve.ca:efi11} eonsiderafison to the
centention ef’ for the parties and
scrutiniseé the
.. Ii is elea1*–Vfr9g1_tit1e perusal of the material on record
erdeI’«pf.v:s7t1epension passed against respondents 4 to 6
6.10.2901 has been set asiric, the same
V . was”é&cce’§t.:eti”.:t)y the appefl.-ants and zespondents 4 to 6 were
Respondent No.4 has retired’ fimn service.
Respofident No.5 after reinstatement is continuing ix: service
VT ” Respondent; No.6 who had also been reinsmted has been
\JJ»
suspended by order dated 12.11.2003 and the saxgxe is
subject matter in W.P.No.17153/2006. The
Judge has scrutinised the material on record .
held that the order impugned in the jagfit pekiiiofiiisi ” ‘V
and does not Cali for interfemnce 11:1.dt-
reason to interfere with the .»0r(§er ieafnéé
Single Judge as the same is acbotxiaiéce law.
Accoxdingly, We hold inHt1iA:is appeal
and pass the __ — ‘
‘« ‘f’hc: “d iétiiisscd.
Snd/.
Chief Iustjce
Sd/..;
I”d93
Index: Yes] No