The High Court of Karnataka allowed this writ petition filed by a teacher challenging a salt arrears and termination order. The court held the order non-speaking and passed without hearing, setting it aside and remitting the matter.
Impugned order dated 9/6/2005 set aside; matter remitted to second respondent to pass appropriate orders after hearing.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA C I RC IJIT BENC H AT DHARWAD.
DATED THIS THE 7TF{ DAY OF MARC H 2012
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MRJUSTICE NK.PATIL
2I2005SS
BETWEEN:
SCHOOL DEVARAKARI. BARIRUMBA POST TEACHER IN JUN IOR PRIMARY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS SIRSI TALUK. U.K. DIST. SMT, VIJAYA D/O Sif AN KAR BHOVI
PETITIONER
BY M /5. HEGDE. N EERALAG1 & PATIL. ADVS.)
L... \KA k
\SItEL 11Q\ EAR WAR K.ARWAR, ELK. ELSIS \‘T pi
\ND ME1RLRS SECRETARY 4.. SOCIAL. WELFARE OFFICER
CASTE VERIFICATION COMMITTEE
U. K., KARW AR
U.K. DIST.
RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI P.H,00TKHINDI. HCGP. FOR Ri TO R5)
THE OF THIS W,P, IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION ANXJ. AND ETC. ANXM INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH IMPUGNED DEMANDED BY THE PETiTIONER HIS NOTICE DATED 16,3.2005 VIDE THE DATED SALARY ARREARS THE ORDER PASSED 9.6.2005 SINGED ON 10.6.2005. TO DIRECT THE R2 TO GIVE ALL INCREMENTS TA, DA AND ALSO FINALLY BY R2 13 1/2 MONTHS
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY. THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
instant has correctness of the orders date••(I 9/6/2005 and i0/6,’2005 respondent assailing passed petitioner as pc.i. notice dated 16/3/2005 vide Annexure½, the and also 13 ½ months salary arrears fInally 3crnandc d by the the petItioner the second preserited this petition. the case, by vide Annexure -M. In F..••rther he has sought a direction 1irtifl the second rcapondent to .ive all i.ncrements T, DA
//
.1
3
Then Instead of demands. Meanwhile respondent No.1 alleged that petitioner settling the arrears, the second respondent herein passed an assailing the correctness of the Impugned order passed by the salary was not periodically paid for which she made several Matter was referred to Caste Court held that they have no such power. She has been appointed In the year 1994 and thereafter her order dated 9/6/2005 terminatIng the petitioner from the second respondent vide Annexure-F. Certificate issued in the year 1987, she belongs to Bhovl S.C. Verification committee which relying the judgment of this service. Therefore, she Is constrained to ifie this writ petition 2. It Is the case of the petitioner that as per the Is not Bhovl but Bovi.
respondent 3.1 have gone through the grounds urged In the petition and heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the passed by the second respondent, It Is manifest on the face After careful perusal of the order Impugned of the said order that It Is liable to be set aside at threshold.
4
It does not contain any reasons or discussions or finding and it is not a speaking order. Further. the said orders have been passed unilaterally, without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In view of non affording of reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and non compliance of principles of nature Justice, the order impugned cannot be sustained and Is liable to be set aside. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. instant petition is allowed inp. Order impugned passed by the second respondent dated 9/6/2005 vide Annexure-M Is hereby set aside.
Mater is remitted back to the second respondent to pass appropriate orders after affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and dispose of the same in accordance with law. as expeditiously as possible.
JUDGE Sd!
Vmb/Sbs
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the termination order passed by the second respondent is maintainable.
Whether the petitioner was afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing before termination.
Whether the impugned order violates the principles of natural justice.
Smt. Vijaya
Tahasildar, Sirsi
Deputy Director of Public Instruction
Secretary, Social Welfare Officer
Caste Verification Committee
Block Education Officer
NK. Patil
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
