IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 8"' DAY OF FEBRUARY 2010
PRESENT
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE V.GOPA1..A
AND
THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICEA'A'.'E3.B§DP/XATVNA
WRIT PETITION No.3458'}'/2669 (S};i{AT) D'
BETWEEN:
Ms.Noor Fathima,
W/0 Dr.J.Ahm_'ed",""'3l__ J
Aged 43 years} 1'D,;__ _ '-- _
Presentiy"wAof1:ing" C /0 .49,''' A
15' Crdss, _1--'H' IV\/§*aj--r1_,4D'Rxfiéwice-A Colony,
B21nga1or(-saw 56O"032.A.' .-- A Petitioner
[By»,.gSrui TAN.De\?a(D:1Dé1$ Sf'.C0unse1 for
D' ._ - M Ny;1yamit'r'a' 4 Advocates}
1. A Ka1'nat,aka,
By 1fsASec:retary,
Educéition Department,
'A (Higher Education),
- _M;:s.Bu11d:ng,
Dr.Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangaiore - 560 001.
T.
-e
E J
2. The Karnataka Secondary,
Education Examination Board 81
EX~officio Joint Director of Public
Education by its Secretary,
Department of Public Instructions.
19% Floor. K.S.E.E.B. Buildings,
6"' Cross, Malleswararri,
Bangalore W 560 003.
3. The Deputy Director of Public,'; ._
Instructions & Selection Aut,hority.
Shimoga [)ist.rict., "
Shimoga -- 577 201.
4. The Head Master, ' ._ p _
Government High School,*._f* _ -.
Donabaghatta, Bhad.ra'\_Jathi_ Talilik,
Shimoga w_577*20l§, 2' V ' Respondents
(By Sri “Bl§lVe ‘V
This Writ I?eti”i~,io1i.._’is».flied under Article 226 81 227
of the Constitution ‘of »-Ipndia praying to quash the order
dated. 26.lO:2VOO9’;.1n”application No.1623/2006, on the
file __§of zthe ‘I§arnataka Administ:rative Tribunal at
‘2 V’ Bailgalore ‘wide Anne’X’ure–A in WP.
2’ ‘ll/x*i:tl”.Pet.it.ion coming on for orders this day,
llflfipanna the following:»
0 R D E R
” petitioner is calling in question the order
2 aged 26.10.2009 passed in Application No. 1623/2006.
la
fc
3
By the said order. the Karnataka Admiiiistrative
Tribunal [in short ‘the KAT’) has dismissed the
application of the petitioner. The petitioner was before
the Tribunal questioning t.he order dated l5.09.2G(¥l5aby
which. she was discharged from service
of the Karnataka Civil Service (Probation) {in5 b
short “the Rules’).
2. Heard Sri.N.Devadas –“-learned_$r.:v”C’o1iif1.sel
appearing for the petii.ioner,fi”and VSri;’V”t’i3.\.?ee_rappa.
learned Additional’ Advocate for
respori:deni*s.V V
3. ‘*i’1;e of the learned Sr. Counsel is
i;l1atitlV1e~ TI’ibuL’l’}1?1’1__\7&lfc?.S not justified in dismissing the
ap’p1ViVea.tion«,oi7__t.he petitioner. It is pointed out that
iziioiighidvtiiie:—dAiIsel1a1*ge is under Rule 6 of the Rules. the
Q reason Tor such discharge was by only placing reliance
tiudgment of the Horfble Supreme Court in the
of Prof. Yeshpal & Another V/s State of
is,
i
Chhattisgarh & Ors. (AIR 200% SC 420}. in this regard
it is pointed out that the question which arose for
consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. iswwith
regard to the correctness of the UniVersit.ie’s”be’ieng
constituted by the Gover’nmer.xt and the re’e.og11jitio’n of ”
the same for the purpose of {JiGC”‘(Lir’i«iversit3r_
Commission}. Hence it isecontendeed th.:éi’t ‘then
Judgment could not have beerfmade”a.pp.1ir;ah1e’Hto the
facts of the present c.ase_. ‘ai’sojpoin.tedvout that in
the said Judgment vii-‘.:’V_Enstitution was
u.1t.ima:te1y”t1o.. c’dr1si_de._red. Factual assessment is to
be made and * iv1iUI’es’pec’t;.«of the students who were
pursuing their studies “in existing institutions, they
traiisferred to other colleges recognised by
Therefore, when the interest of the
studerits were in the college was protected by the
TR””.__VV”i*~iori’b].eV,_.§3upreme Court itself similar treatment would
–».a§pp1i(:ab1e to the students who had aiready
..completed the course and secured their degrees since
it
3
there was no cancellation of withdrawal of the degree
certificate after complying with principies of natural
justice. Therefore, the Government at this point. in any
event. could not have dewecognised the
which had been accepted.
4. Learned Additional gC{ov €rljfi€1€I3<'E 'i'S_d\:ro*c'ate';
however strongly contended tha.t 'i'.ri_buna1dV
justified in its conclusion. It–va.is'–rco11tei1de'd VI:{o1'1'bie
Supreme Court had. 'eX_ami.ned' r.iEi:eV""r1f1atter"'thVorough}y
and had come to the codncl=.d';'sion Universities
which V':Vwerc set.'u_p'tcanjfie.t. 'remain in existence. Vifhen
such decision Vwvas rendered, the Universities which were
in ,..eXiste11c:e" "hitherV to cannot be considered as
»re'c–r)gnised-,_AUniversities and therefore the degree
obtainedd' petitioner herein cannot be considered
j Vaiidhvtbr the purpose of employment. Therefore. as
".j..o'1'1'dii.he date of the decision to discharge the petitioner.
t.
In
7
pet:itioner was working so, the Horrble Supreme Court
whiie considering a public interest. litigation had come
to the conclusion that the Universities Could not have
estabiished and the approval granted byfr’»the
Chhattisgarh Government under Chhattisg’arh.’_.’__i’iSIijVi
Khetra Vishwavidhyalaya {Sthapana
Adhiniyam, 2002 was iI1~ap’p’ro:priatei }
said orders under whiehft-he esAtab1ishr1ie1u1t’_vof
Universities were permitted haddbeeri V}To that
extent, it. is no doubt«._trueA._ t1:g_at. “th’e’A.”i=¥ron’ble Supreme
Cou1″t_’had”eeetenleiftio saidiiieonclusion. However, a
fu_rt]1erV”*pe1’usal of»Aithie”-siaiddudgment at Para~64 would
indieatie t.h.at I_{?i(3n’.E31e.”»Sii’1..3rerne Court had aiso thereafter
detrakenfii ‘%ji0tie’..of thieiweorisequentte that wouid fall out of
it was brought to the notice of Horfble
Strprerne’ Court’, that severai students had been admitted
‘ v”t.ot.he ‘inst.it.L1t.ion which were recognised as Universities
i>aiid«A”i;11ereiore their in.te1’est should not be affected.
~»v-Though taking note of %h circumstances the Horfble
8
Supreme Court however did not go into those aspects of
the matter since at that poirit. the learned Additional
Solicitor General had contended that some of the
universities were never in existence. The Hoifble
Supreme Court felt that the said aspect. of
would require the factual assessment asto, the b
colleges were in existence or notlzbandele to ‘§’«4IAl1e_tlI’;er_tyth,ey’
1
fulfilled the required norms.’ Tl2_el”‘Honfb1AgV.Igtiprjernejf
Court, in order to protect thé~._lir1t.erest-.Qlfthellfstudents
who may be actually” institutions
establi’sh’eds»…l€Jy lsfuch”‘private”Universities directed the
State Coyernmeiitftyo’appropriate measures to have
such _instit”et_i’ons’;.affiliated to the already existing, State
‘ Ui’1i\}’e1i:sities in Chhattisgarh.
‘ in so far as National Technological
U1’1.i_ver_sity’,}’ Raipur, under which the petitioner had
studied and obtained the degree, even as of today there
material on record to indicate that there is factual
at
0′:
i V’ .oth-erca-se.rvi. A
9
finding that the eoliege in which the petitioner had
studied had never been in existence. Therefore, in the
absence of said finding of the fact merely beCauVSe]the
establishment of the universities were set ae.iTde”” .
H01’1’b1e Sn reme Court, the de ree eertifieate:’ise’ue’ci 113
favour of the petitioner could not
invalid since if subsequer1tiy’_ institution iaatlfieliated r L
to the existing university th_e__u’earIier degree evvefrtificate
would still be valid. _a1So_e1ear that the
present order h_aa,_beet=1″‘pa’sé:ed’ into consideration
the t’aetLi’a1’~t.a:spee’f”sI’vtfhteh ariepeeuliar to the present
case \vhic:h._’have ‘?ae«e%nvi1§tl,iea.ted above and therefore the
present ortier Vshail nuatwhe treated as precedent for any
” “I_’her’eifere, for the above said reasons we are of
–V the that the Tribunal was not justified in its
ii.j..C€)I’1e.1«usvien. Accordingly the order dated 26.09.2009
by the Karrlettéia Administ:rat.1’ve Tribunal in
‘3
Application No.1623/2006 is set aside and
consequently the order dated 15.09.2005 passeciw
respondents under Rule 8 of the Rules statntize ‘
Hence the petitioner is entitled for »._re–instaten1ent._V,Iitih
consequential benefits which woii1d._be iInp1e:nent.ei;i._ss.’
expeditiously as possible. V
9. In terms of’fine_a1iov:e..1.theibetition is aiiowed.
No order as to costs. ‘ ._ ‘V
Sd/–
‘ IUDG;
Sd/9