. W A No.l702/2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALQEE
DATED THIS THE 18'1" DAY SEPTEMBER 2909 ;;f E.
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE aom..m¢um,a.e ' E, T
THE HON'BLE DR. JUsTIcE"'KV;"BI;AKTH;'§VATs:ELA
WRIT APPEAL' Nogi fez'-,'i42ob9. (S)
BETWEEN --
1. The State ofKarnk1ta1]ié.._v . '
Rep. by its Seeretai'y--1."1'--,. ,
Education Department i1?1'im.a'r'y and
Secondary), M'S"B-uilejingéjfi-: V'
Vidhana Veecihi _RoaVCi',v.'g
Bangalore. ' ' ' ' ~. " '
2. The Commission ervof Public "
Instructions,' ~ _ _ ' '
Dept. of Ec1'ucati'on, .....
New Pub1c'e'0ffi'ées,
Nrupathuiaga RD'aci',«,
Banga}.ore_;. ' "
7 _ "3=.'<The Deputy }:3rire¢tor of Public
v?'Instructions} «V V
-- ~ Dfavanagere Eistzict,
_D§§1V3'n_age1'e,_. Appellants
Aw I " Vijaya, Add}. G A, for appellants)
\\,_//»
W A No. I702/2€}{}9
AND:
1. Sharanappa G C.
S/o Chennappa,
Age: 42 years,
Working as Arts Teacher,
Padmashree High School,
Navilehal Post,
Channagiri Taluk,
Davanagere District.
2. Padrnashree Education
Society ®,
Represented by its Secretary
Nallur, V
Channagiri Taluk,
Davanagere District.
3. The Head Master." : _
Padmashree High .53--ci;.Ooi1;4 'V ' 2 9 .
Navilehal. 3:
Channag1'riTaluk,
Davanagere Di'strict..._5'. -- Respondents
This Writ ispfi-1ed*._un"der Section 4 of the Karnataka High
Court Act, ;1'96_1. prayiifig to set aside the order passed in W P
Node] 227/_ dated 1 7.6v;~2--GO8.
iiis ':\.ppeva1'~con:.iing on for preliminary hearing this day, Gopala
Z _ Gowdaxl. following:
JUDGMENT
explanation offered in the application for condonation of
24£_7l..l.”days in filing this Appeal is not satisfactory for our
\N/
W A No. E702/2009
second respondent’s educational institution, has issued a___direction
the appellant No.3 to consider the case of the 15* re_spon–dent in
exercise of the learned Single Judges discretionary power’ “f’O:_:€2:iEt.I.1?.iI1f:
the case and accommodate him as an Artsjeacher’ in ‘–th:elnstitutio’n,’ .
Where such posts are created having reg:;ard:_’t’ei..l1iirst
respondent has worked for 17 ye-ars asgan Artsjteaeher..3jn the
second respondent’s educational insti’tntioVn, the laost is not
approved by the appellant ‘I’helre.for’e’;~–..the”learned Single Judge
has granted the relief in favourwofithe in exercise of his
discretionary power, gwhich’ cafinoit ‘as”:unreasonable.
5. We a1f_e_in “‘1<e'spe–Q:tfnI ..agreefnent._vtrith the View taken by the
learned Singleadudgelwlin 'IfT:_"i'}')'VL!¥§.I"ii~'3(Z'i order.
6. Hence, “App*eal’v_ fails and the same is accordingly
dismisvsed…’:_: ””
Sd/…
JUDGE
Sq?/..
.7ElDGE