High Court Karnataka High Court

Ramanagouda Puttanagouda Patil vs The Municipal Boys High School on 8 July, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Ramanagouda Puttanagouda Patil vs The Municipal Boys High School on 8 July, 2008
Author: S.Abdul Nazeer
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA _   * ~  %  %
cmcurr BENCH AT DHARWAI)  M    . _    %

DATED ms THE 8"' DAY €:~F J?_:L'i' 260:3"   ~  " A

BEFORS

THE HON'BI.l£' Mxmsrrcg $i"ABL>vL 

 

WRIT Psrmrozv 190.33  ,1 Agatzsg

Between:
Ramanagouda;Pi1ttana:goi;da1?atii;.._  
3/0 Puttaflagofidfi Fffiil. " '  ..
Aged 313011': 1:;  ..

     _ *
Municipal-Boys Higi scam, " . '
Ranebennuffalzik,'  V   

Haveri Disirict.~.    %  %   Petitioner.

 . «(By   

1 *  "11;¢3.éi:;;s¢£p§1 Boys High School,
.Ra1;f:bex;nur Taluk, Haveri District,
By it; Head Master.

'    AA C.itYhMuniciPal Council,

V'  Ranebennnr Taiuk,
Haveri Disixict.

  Theszocxgaumionomoer,

Ranebcanur Taluk,
Haveri District.

 



  Cbnst_Viututi<$12.  ofmdia, praying to quash the endorsement dated
yvs%.2;2oe22 issgea  25, etc.

%  _Court"made:the following:

"    this case, the petitioner has called in quwction the order at

' 2%: "Am2exure 'G' dated 5.7.2002 passed by the 5"' respondent directing

4 The Deputy Director of Public Insfifilaiaiafsg 2′ ‘ %
Haveri District.

5 The Director of Secondary
Ofiice ofthe Commissioner for . _ *
Public Instructions, Nxéxpamufiga ,
Bangalere W 560 001. . ”


5 stateofxamatalca, 
 

   
Banglore -~ =>60w1.,    ;     2 2  2
Byits    A.   Respondents.

(By Sn" _   2

Sri 24.13, ‘AGA t’e.«;I§3 to 6)

v.’:4’3F}1i;s.:.\?é’rit Pe2ifioa—is”fiied under Articles 226 & 227 of the

.’ ‘ coming on for Final Hearing this day, the

9_1.i.D__.E£

2
fs
1
x

LE .

4/

amount received by him as Grade 1 P.E.Tea.cher. He . N

similarly situated teachers such as G.B.Hanchma.’ 1

S.B.Budhihal have also received the axnoeets m.e 0

the respondents have not taken “for reeeve14y.. ei’*tiie
excess amount received by _ efder is

discriminatory in nature and is eegacipies efnatural

justice.

4. On for respondent
New to 6 mum 12 of the notification

at Armexurre is ..e_r:titIed for the pay scaie of Grade

I P.E.Teache:t have gven the salaxy to

_v the petfiiietzer inxth’e.. scele ef Grade I P.E.’I’eacher. Therefore,

iefund the said amount.

IV::11eve ‘e.a;’efi1lly considered the arguments made by the

‘ »~ ~. _ _ reeerd.

the Bar and perused the materials placed on

K”.

” Vihave ‘ “*:*.:*ove:’£ed the said statement made in the

dents have not produced any material to

the nofificafion at Annexure ‘C’. The impugned order is
in natural and is opposed 10 the principlw of natural
V’ Having regard to the facts and circumstances, I am of the

jvzew that the 5″‘ respondent is not justified in initiating action

6. It is not the case ofthe State
payment made to the petitiorj1»es~:.:’L:.V”‘vsras
misrepresentation. It is also ngt the’.Ac2isV<«§ fVhaa..
that it has taken action fiom the
similarly writ petition,
petitioner has sinxaany situated teachers
such as «<s'.B;Bu';31ai1za1 have been paid
similar has not taken any

action for rétie-verge pf AL5§'….§xcess amount from them. The

shéw has given an undertaking in terms of Clause 12

against the petitioner for rec very ofthe aforesaid amount.

7. In the result, writ petition succeeds and it ” 1

allowed The impugned order at T

hereby quashed. Rule made absolutse.’ Np ‘ ”