IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
DATED THIS THE 1535 DAY OF JANUARY 2_Q(%:f§T% ~ u
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE:'AJfP V
WRIT PETITION No.15374/2:)o7 ¢,Iw; : %
WRIT PETITION No,117a/2003
BETWEEN :
The Management,
Punacha Pariyalthadka, -.
Aided Higher Primaly "
D.K. Dist1'ict_-::3745;fV281~, _ 1;:
Rcpmscnwdibyiizsh "
CorI'espo11(1cI"1't_ " , " '
Smt.Ushalaksh131i Mg
...PE'I'I'FIONER
% (Common in both)
(By Szi.I{}i2am lI;:3I"-v1_:.1i:~. 8';' Assouates, Advs.)
hi wxgxa.
' ,
« Rep:ve"ae11a!;c:d'by its Sectary to
_ . 1 ' 4. _ __ Veovexxztazgutf Appellate Authority
' & Secondary Edumtion),
ducaiion Department,
-ffM.':3.Bui1ding, Bangal0m-560 001.
V.TI;he Commissioner,
" ~ " Department of Public Insm.1cti.ons,
Nrupathunga Road,
Bangalore --- 560 00 1.
_ Bangalore.
I ' * xcation Omccr,
-3-
3. The Director (Priznaxy Education),
Dcparmcnt of Public Instructions,
Nrupathunga Road,
Bangalore ~--- 560 001.
4. B.Ramakrishn.a Bhat,
S/o.Sri.Mahabala Bhat,
Asst. Teacher, Punacha _
Pariyalthadka Aided
Punacha, Bantwal Taluk, A f: '
D.K.I)istrict - 5'74 281.
(By Sri.B.Ma.n.ohar, AGA' td'.R-4. A
Sri.0.Shdvarama. Bhat, Adv. for R4,, _
Sri.M.R.Shaficndra,
InW.P.No.1178l2008
1. The state
RepI'e'$_en£edVbjritS" "" ' -
Under
Ed11catio1*14_I)cp~a1*1J:t.ic1::t;,"*--....
Eduqafioil, k¢I.S'.Buil(fing,
X . Eamvak. Emma Taluk,
...RESPONDEN'l'S
(By Sfi.0.S 3 Blm, Adv.
- " for inttpkzadjzlg applicant
. in I.A.i/O8 8; i.A.iI/2008,
Sri.M.R.8hai1cndra, Adv. for
Impleading applicant in i.A.I/2()i)8)
W.P. No.15874/2007 is filed under Atticlce 226 of
the Constitution of Imiia with a prayer to quash the
order impugned dated 30.08.2007 passed by the
-3-
Appellate Authority cum Under Secretary to
Government (Primary 8: Secondary Education, in Apiteal
No.40/06 Ed 280 PMC 2006), as per Annexure 'Afancl
consequently to set-aside the order dated "~ V.
passed by the Director, Public Instructions, ' .
of Karnataka in Proceedings No.O'7(6)/PriM,__ 'Eg1n,iMisc4 Q
59/2002-O3 as per Annexure 'D'.
W.P. No.1173/2003 is fi1ed *--.un;iier: Amaze"
22V6'*--~of1vo.jA
the Constitution of India with a prayer. to '
order dated 5.12.2007 issuedfltyy the Rzm "
cancellation of the approval of "Knead -3Moeter
per Annexure 'A'. .
as
as
These Writ petitioiisfl for , this
day, the Court made ttxe_fo:l.'1£:s\ri'r_1.g'; * V _
f9P;o'ER If AA
of by mis
common order. " _
"question required to be decided in
'is, whether the appointment of the 4th
Master of the petitioner-Institutiora
_ interfered and also as to who should be
the post of Head Master.
V[ The dispute arose Way back in the year 1991 as
who should be appointed as the Head Master of the
been set at naught and the claim of the 431 respondent
was directed to be considered. Inciderntally, it is
noticed that this Court, while confirming the ~ 2
the Tribunal has obscured thus:
‘In the matter 3-;o3.qne L.
can claim as a matte?’ .°-f «.
promotion to a _ candidature of alt has to be respondent than
the 2.} %;.® .fea;Qo§:..§ come
on hifiivhy he was
negzewtea; % by the
an a proper and
. and not an arbitrary
M of it. A person more
r§icfey …be deprived of his right to
* gr there is anything found
.V Nothinghasoomeonrecord
AA : it could be oonsidened that
No.2 here was not eligibte or
was not liable to be
Thepresuntption thatafcwourwas done to
respondent No.2 because he is the sun of
legal remedy against the decision of the
273/
.5.
the Correspondent on the face of it appears
tobejusttjfied’. ifiwdaimofrespondent
No.2 war be considered from the date the
post of Head Master became vacant
proper order would be passed ‘_ V
month from the date of _V in
ofthis order.’
This observation the
Revision Petition has Since tiieuorder of
the Tribunal as well given effect
to, the 431 proceedings in
the Execution
Wes’ the claim of the 431
respondcm; The said order was
by petitioiier before this Court in ().R.P.
allowed the revision petition
sefaasicte’ tiieiiorder of the Executing Court on the
i direcfion issued by the Executing Court
given efiect to. But however, liberty was
V _ it to the 4* rwpondent to pursue his
– 7 _
petitioner~Management taken against him at its meeting
held on 27.01.2000. V _
4. Consequently, another round of
commenced inasmuch as the petitioner
appeal in Appeal No.38/2000 bgs:foze« . ”
Authority. The Appellate Authority
several proceedings, which
the appeal of the 4*’? the
Dmetor of Public Insuuefioe
the entire issue to promote
the 4th * A copy of the said order
is at to thereof, the D1I’ecto’ r
that meet in the school is
the post of Head Master and if
_ V No; 1- the post, it should go on to No.2
A and if the post it should go on to No.3 and
e The said order was questioned by the petitioner
N No.3/2004. The Appellate Authority once
V’ having regard to the conduct and also the relevant
rules relating to the appointment of Head Master as/fl
J
.. 9 –
is only an ofi’ shoot of the first petition. If the petitioner
succeeds or otherwise in the first petition, consequentfml
order would follow in the second petition.
6. Mr.I{.Ram Bhat, learned counsel ”
the petitioner would strenuously contend. 1 1 ‘V
promotion/appointment to the N
within the realm of the admhfisuofioo’ the
of the School, not\nrithstanding”V’i~};§’é,’ feet it
aided school. He mus? ‘that
proeeedi11gs 4’33 respondent for
misdemeaflor-I ‘yfisgs punished inasmuch
as he was days. He further submits
,f’ti”1at “is better qualified and more
of Head Master. Hence, submits
L fIze:’Vorde1;s::p$3;ssed by all the authorities are liable to
e e Villterfefegii
Mr.O.Shivarama Bhat, learned counsel
V for the 4% respondent would strmmously
contend that right from the year 1991, the 4*’-*1%
-19..
respondent has been running from pillar to post
inasmuch as right up the Apex Court and the claim» of
the 4th respflndent has been upheld by the A. V.
He further submits that the 4″! mspondeiifi
qualified both wucatiomwise aiitiii
head the Institution as a
submits that Sriharsha Shasti:*’,;V:VV:i:s*: cleselj ihe ‘V
Secretary of the Iflsfitlkiiifill. eubixiiis the
impugned Orders ‘are
8, ~ “fiiiditzional Government
Advocate.’ State, submits that the
Grant§ii1–aid”~~ to be mad with the
3 V’ Aet, the criterias for appointment of
are enumerated. He supports the
‘V and submits that what has been done
i:I1c”a_{1t}:1I’ii:ies is to mow the procedure oar the
of Head Master as laid either under the
’11’ Ediication Act or in the Grantwin—a.id Code.
/
X
E”; appmved by the Apex Court.
V’ as the 4m respondent are qualified. In
guys to% be noticed that the 4:2: respondent is slightly
% inasmuch as both the claimants have
V their Post Graduatiorx and have obtained a B.Ed.
education also. The additional qualification of the 4th %
-11-
9. It is not in dispute that both the petitioner as
wel} as the 4*” respondent are litigating sinee 19’9_1
regarding appointment to the post of Head ~
has been observed by this Court in
proceedings, which has been
would clearly indicate that A
the 4’33 respondent cannot e. to
be appointed or :« Itiaster,
nevertheless a in the
earliest of the 4*
respondtg-;V;’:’1tVTVi’f;v; ” the appointment of
3111′ 33131?’ hoe basis was not on
merits; but on.’ ether exmaneous circumstances.
to be noticed that both Sr1hars’ ha
/
..}3..
Secondary Educational institutions) Rules, 1999
Annexure – V1 with reference to Rule 3 would indicate
that the promotion to the post of Head Master ea’
Mistress shall be made on the basis of 4.
teacher and seniority is to be deterI3:u’L:1ed x
the number of years of continuous
of entry into the cadre of
Grade-I or Grade-II as V the his in
dispute that the 4*” h’ It rendered
continuous years. Even
0thCI’WiSt:_; I_II_~ is made abundantly
clear that tige’ win Act as a Head
Master’ of then On both counts, the
atelaéhv for appointment as the Head
12.~~jCo1V1sequently, I am of the Vi£’.”W that the
« orders passed by all the authorities mnnot be
Having’ regard to these facts, I am of the View
..t?;’1at there is no merit in this writ petition.
Petition stands rejected.
-14..
13. In so far as the Writ petition 1178/2008 is
concerned, What. is questioned is the ondorscniofig
issued by the Competent Authority _
petitioner — Institution to give efihct the u
earlier. Since the orders passod
Authorities are confirmed, o:lV””i:!1’é
impugled endorsementfalso
the following order is u V
Both the p¢:::i¢nsAsza§;:1 ”
A11 stand
CoIn’;5ii,4:’.§.11r;cVot_’ ‘£fi.e»* of the authorities withm
_a of from today.
14o m. B.Manohar, learned Additional
appearing for respondents 1 to 3
w.p.’m; 15374/2007 is permitted to file memo of
T Within four weeks.
Séfm
SP8