_ 1 _
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF OCTOBER 2010
BEFORE T
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE RAM M0H_z,xi%1 4
"HuTPEnTm»:N0.6094[20O {S:RE§fl,L"~ "u
_ .
MISC. W. No. 5289/2010 A * V %
1NW.P.NO. 6094;f~~2009"{S--RES)}
_El_E_T__W_E1lT;
T. Narasamma ._ -.
D/0. 'I'ippaiah. V V
AgedVVabo1_i"t ' "
Assistant '1'e"a_.ch6?r_ ._ _ --
Bethixr Channaibasappgf "
siddappa'High.er "School
Anekondap ._ "
Dafwcnagere Taluk 81' District
' %%%%% ...PETITIONER
M5"i:'} [G
L' S'ri M_§ Hirernath & Shivananda D. S., Advs.]
1. 'I'h e':":Devara}' Urs Vidya Samsthe (Regci)
'A Befhur Road, Anekonda
V. _ Davarlagere
Lkk
'(s_\}' Mundargi, AGA for R2 to R5}
4
[Q
1
By its Secretary
Srnt. B. P. Saroja
2. The Block Education Officer
Davanagere Taluk 8: District
3. The Deputy Director of Public V
Davanagere District * ..
4. The Director of Primary Education
Office of the C.P.I. ' - V'
Nrupathunga Road
Bangalore
5. The Secretary .. _ --_ ;
Department of Education' _
Government of Karriataka V
M.S.Bui1di;';gI" _ " "
Bangalcreéé ?Ij_ '
6. S1f'i"D1riari:i.anje}}g'a Rergldy '
Assis.tant *1*ea¢11er« _ it '
Aged: Major
Ujjairai Jagadguru Higher Primary School
;I._C.R. Extension', Jagalur
, (Zhitradurga. District
" T. . """ RESPONDENTS
Gt} 3″\J’*C*2\3
is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Corzstitution of India praying to quash the order dt.
DDV25/’ION/2008 issued by the R5, as per Annex.M, and
bé
consequential order dt. 18/ 8/ 2007, passed by the R2,
as per Annex.L and order dt. 30/ 7/ 2007, passedby the
R3, as per Annex.J by issue of writ in the
certiorari or any other writ or directions asthe
be and etc.
This Misc.W. application filed to
R4 to release the salary grant on”parV-with.hier:coi1eagues’~op
as per the orders produced”at:V’*Annex;G_1″&:”:G2;;
These W.P. and_’Misc.i_:W, ciorryiing on for hearing
on LA. this day, the Court rriaae vtfoiiouring:
is listed for orders, with the
coIise1it’o_fVtheVV1earned'”.Counsei for the parties, is finally
and by this order.
petitioner, an Assistant Teacher in Bethur
H Siddappa Higher Primary School,
Anekohda” in Davanagere Taluk 8: District, an aided
iinstitution was appointed during the academic year
M
1991-92, whence the institution having recommended
the appointment for approval and admission vto’..:grant–
in~aid, the Department of Education
2/ 7/ 1991, approved the appointment
imposed, amongst others, ti’iat__ ‘the
petitioner must completelier te’achcr~trainingpppcourse’
within 2 years. It is assert_ed_- similarly
circumstanced _V Sri Anjaneya
Kannada H§gh_er Bhashanagar.
approved without
aid i992, AnneX.G1, and
measterwaigipgirr it 31/ 10/2004, Annex.G2.
were adniiitte”dit.o– gr’ant~:–in~aid. It is the allegation of the
ppa.1:.itio’nrer- ipthattttheiapproval of the appointment of her
Department of Education was not with
the con=d_it’ion of having to complete a teachers training
xcpourisetwithin 2 years and hence the petitioner was
it iscriminated, in Violation of Art.i4 of the Constitution
fiisi
of India. it is further alleged that though her employer
submitted proposals and recommendations for
admission of salary grant to the petitioner onrparwith
other similarly placed teachers, the
Education Department by letter d’t’.”=
AnneX.J, rejected the rec’on1men’datio’11::~-r ias
communicated by letter”l¥mnex.l;’.v- order –5whent”
carried in appeal before thye..Vf)irec.tor, .resp_on_dent No.4,
was confirmed ‘ .. appeal as
communicatedgin theillletter /V10/2u008, AnneX.M.
._ « ggislliopposed by filing statement of
objections dt. 6/ respondents 2 to 5, interalia
admitting the similarly circumstanced teachers
i€,l”=S_avitri Devi, B. C. Ravi, C. Yellamma,
“Re’Janasidadgappa, Shivanandappa, Basavarajappa, etc.,
llrvdifferent schools, were admitted to salary grant. It is
also. untrained teachers, in different managements in
Lin
stated that the empioyer of the petitioner had submitted
a proposai only on 2/9/2005 to admit the petitioner to
salary grant, by which time the Karnataka”Ed_1i.cai:_ion_
Act, 1988, had come into force, petitione:i=..h’aying riotw.
possessed the prescribed qualiificai-tiori -appoi;::m¢;~Lt
as a primary school teacher_, was. disentitled..,to salaryiir
grant. V A H
4. The petition’er2’h.as uan’:affi–d_avit cit. 6/ 10/ 10
undertaking to” in the event
directions «–are_ ed “salary grant.
to the admitted fact that
teachers9..sVim.ilariy’:’p1ac.ed as the petitioner. in primary
sVe_’:i’too1__2A’ Whose””a.ppointment during the year 1991-92
‘ ylwere without grant and without the conditions
.’to””iunder5go.5’ teachers training course within 2 years.
whenvno prescription of qualification for appointment to
I .t:he_«said post was avaiiabie, the approval of appointment
Lri
of the petitioner without aid, subject to undergoing
teacher training course within 2 years, there is’~_n<iore
doubt in my mind, that the irnposition_"":of'
condition tantamounts to discriminationduvndeif 4- * in
the Constitution of India.
6. Petitioner’s ernpioyer having repeated
requests by to the
Education Dep.artmen*- .the[.p’etitioner’s claim
for respondent —
authoritya the claim as had
beenildoneAintrespeet’ the petitioners colleagues in the
order them to salary grant during
thejear 2004;..flA1th.ough learned Government Counsel
,’ __AnneX.G2 is not dated, but nevertheless
u petitioner’s colleagues were admitted
to ésalavryhvgxrant in the year 1992 and 1994itse1f. If that
it ~ so, then it was all the more reason for the respondent
M
is disentitled to backwages, but entitled to fixation of
salary, increments and benefits for pension only.
Petition is ordered accordingly. Comp1.ianc:¢ ‘
6 months.
1VIisc.W. S§.8?.’.”i’97 is rejected as u1Lnve€;-es’s.;aI*y»,. in
View of disposal of the Writ Petitiony.
Judge
‘A3 – -.:m.:.u:-_.::.:’;:.<.=:ar.*:".2;~.'i=:ywgxgW -ms: