Partly allowed

The Director of Pre-University Education v. Yekanagouda S/O Basalingappagouda

Karnataka HC7 Mar 2012WP/13520/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka quashed an EAT order directing aided education institutions to pay salary arrears, holding that dismissal required prior state approval and sustained non-reinstatement negated payment liability.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the impugned order of the Educational Appellate Tribunal directing respondents to pay arrears of salary from the date of suspension.

The Director of Pre-University Education Vs… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD.

¶2

DATED THIS THE 7TFI DAY OF MARCH 2012

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRJUSTICE NKPATIL

¶5

PETITION NO. 13520 2005 SRes

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

Education, Palace Road, Bangalore. The Director of PreUniversity

¶8

Belgaum Division, The Joint Director of Public Instructions, Belgaum. 2.

¶9

Petitioners

¶10

(By Sri.P, 1-LOotithindi, HCGP.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Basalingappagouda, Masur, Tq.Hirekerur, B,T.Patil Composite P U College, Sri. Yekanagouda Sb Major, 0cc: Principal, Dist: Dharwad.

¶13

Sarvagna Vidya Pe.etha Masur, I i .i i u T) sr f)jt ‘

¶14

¶15

:1 Hirekerur, Sarvagna Vidva Peetha, Masur, Tc The President, Dist: Dhanvad.

¶16

Sarvagna Vidya Peetha, Masur, Tq: Hirekerur. The Secretary, Dist: Dharwacl.

¶17

Respondents

¶18

(By Sri.M.S.Haravi. Adv. for Ri: M/s M.Rama Bhat & ShrLH.RSreepada Assts, for R2R4)

¶19

A. the petitioners to pay the arrears of salar 10.12.2003 passed by the Educational Appellate Tribunal in Miscellaneous Appeal [Eati No. 8/2001; in so far as directing This w.p. is filed praying to setaside the order dated to the RI vide Anx

¶20

the Court made the following: This writ petition eomin on for final hearing this day.

¶21

ORDER

¶22

d.a.teci 10/12/2003, pa.sed in Miscellaneous Appeal (EATJ No8/200 1 on the file of the FZducati.onai Appellate Tribu.nal, the inipuned order 4 These netinoners hein a&tgrievd b Haven. in sofaras directin the peritioners 10 pav the arrears

¶23

¶24

¶25

presented this writ petition. of salary to the first respondent as per Annexure-A. have

¶26

as respondent Inturn denied the charges leveled against him. lecturer report to the Governing Council on 30/11/1995. appointed Subsequently, he was working as charges was served on the first respondent. was was approved by the Joint Director, Public Instructions, incharge Principal with effect from 28/5/1995. Thereafter, promoted as a regular Principal with effect from 28/9/1986. Enquiry Officer after conducting the Inquiry submitted a The respondents 2 and 3 by their order dated 27/5/1985 kept the first respondent under suspension for some of the The first Composite Pre The same University College, Masur. on 28/6/198 1. Belgaum, on 27/5/1982. Therefore the respondents 2 and 3 have appointed Enquiry In B.T.Patll Illegalities committed by the first respondent. The articles of HIs appointment 2. BrIef fac of the case are that the first respondent Officer to inquire into the matter and submit the report. The

¶27

¶28

was placed before the special meeting held on 1/11/1995 and first respondent on 1/11/1995 produced at Annexure-B. respondents 2 and 3 have taken a decision to dismiss the first respondent from service and passed the order dismissing the

¶29

Tribunal at Haved, the said appeal was transferred to Haven dated 10/12/2003 was pleased to allow the appeal and set Tribunal after considering the matter In detail, by its order aside the order dated 1/11/1995 passed by the respondents Appellate Tribunal, Dharwar. The same was numbered as In view of constitution of Educational Appellate The Educational Appellate Appellate Tribunal, Haven, directing the petitioner to pay the Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Educational 3. The first respondent being aggrieved by the order the arrears of salary withIn 90 days from the date of order. 1/96. dated 1/11/1995 filed an appeal before the Educational and renumbered as 8/200 1. 1 to 5 in the appeal i.e. including the petitioners herein to pay

¶30

¶31

arrears of salaty, the petitioners have presented this writ petition

¶32

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently submitted that under the grant in aid agreement the management cannot terminate the employees without prior approval of the State Government, In the instant case, the Deputy Director of Pre University Education appeared as R.W I in appeal filed by the first respondent has specifically deposed that respondents 2 and 3 have not obtained prior approval for dismissal of first respondent In fact, the petitioners by their order dated 15/12/1995 and 11/3/1996 directed the respondents 2 and 3 to reintafe he first respondent into sen ice In pite of epeated dirc tions cspondent I tnd 3 ha e not r instited h first spondent I d qu ,a ng llegali i s naut d I C ponner t r pc nd a r I I por ii I a p me t p

¶33

¶34

Is liable to be set aside. petitioners to pay salary to the respondents from suspension order Impugned passed In sofaras It relates to directing the period till the date of reinstatement cannot be sustained and looked by the Educational Appellate Tribunal. Therefore,

¶35

for the petitioners submits that the Appellate Thbunal has 5. Further, the learned Government Pleader appearing the date of reinstatement and cancellation of the dismissing Such order cannot be sustained and accordingly, reason that they have not taken prior approval as per the taking management respondent Nos.2 and 3 to reinstate the first relevant grant-in-aid. Without Issuing direction to the petitioners herein to pay arrears of salary of the respondent No.1 from the date of suspension till prior permission they have suspended and passed an order of they issued direction on 15/12/1995 and 11/3/ 1996 to the Rules dismissal. committed a grave error much less material Irregularity, In of the first respondent from service, is not sustainable for the of

¶36

I’ —---———°

¶37

¶38

respondent into service. When there Is no default on the part salary. Therefore he submitted. the order Impugned passed of the petitioners herein they are not liable to pay arrears of by the Appellate Tribunal is liable to be set aside at threshold.

¶39

an aided Institution. the the guidelines relating to grant in aid. The Institution where the first respondent Is working under respondents 2 and 3 Is respondents 2 and 3 that they have obtained prior permission learned appearing against the employee for suspension or promotion, services or In the Instant case, it Is not the case of the petitioners and perusal of the order impugned, it is manifest material ifiegality in proceeding to pass an order, contrary to dismissal they are bound to take prior permission from the petitioners. by the Government Pleader on the face of the said order that, the Tribunal has committed before taking action and dismissing the first respondent from senrlce. One more aspect to be borne In mind Is that, it Is the for 6. After careful consideration of the submission made If they want to Initiate any proceedings

¶40

¶41

of repeated a Ii of th tin’ instant rctii 3 are solely responsible for the payment of arrears of sala. e inn t he 2 and 3 to reinstate the first respondent into senicc. 2 3 No valid reasons are assigned tI faci Sc c1rrurnfanrt nt the arrears of salary to the first respondent Educational Appellate reinstated the first respondent into service. respondents ustamed n I s liable and and regarding Education Appellate Tribunal. Tribunal demerits east ih enquiry dated 15R2/1995 and I 1/3/1996 directing the respondents directions, have they held ade novo committed by the first respondent. Hence, respondents 2 and it thnshokl. Pheictori’, iinhoat going into further merits and have order passed by th Tribunal sofaras it relat s to issiung direction I asid case of the petitioner that petitioners have passed orders This aspect of the matter is completely over looked by the Therefore riden illegalities iiht On the contrary, ise reft ned ahov not thc petit iom Cs a pay arrear in of ,alaiy of thc first In spite . of for holding that the petitioners herein arc liable to pay the I am of the considered view that the r1

¶42

¶43

Impugned order dated the petitioners Miscellaneous Appeal (EAT) No8/2O0I in sofaras directing recover Haven, pay the arrears first from is allowed in of to to the to of salary in 10/12/2003, arrears respondent is hereby set aside, reserving liberty to the tirst respondent respondents 2 and 3 in accordance with law, passed by the Educational Appellate Tribunal. the part. salary the

¶44

JUDGE Sd/

¶45

Vmb/Sbs

The Director of Pre-University Education v. Yekanagouda S/O Basalingappagouda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Director of Pre-University Education v. Yekanagouda S/O Basalingappagouda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Satish Gajanan Pawar Vs the State of Karnataka

Jayaram Krishnappa Shetty Vs the Labour Commissioner and Presiding Officer

V R Shyanbhag S/O R P Shyanbhag Vs the State of Karnataka

Fakkirappa Sannatammappa Kotambari Vs the Karnataka Power

Dr Miss Odilia Countinho Vs South Konkan Education Society

Vijaya Vs Tahasildar Sirsi Uttara Kannada