Disposed

Wajidatabassum D/O.Bashirahemad Sayyed v. the Secretary, Primary and Secondary Edu Govt of

Karnataka HC5 Sept 2012WP/66719/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Wajidatabassum sought quashing of a government order refusing her regularization as an Assistant Teacher in an unrecognized additional section. The High Court disposed of the petition on preliminary hearing, noting the appointment lacked government approval for grant in aid. No substantive ruling was rendered.

What the court decided

AI extract

Wajidatabassum D/O.Bashirahemad Sayyed Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶2

CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

¶3

Dated this the 5^th day of September, 2012

¶4

Before

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH

¶6

Writ Petition 66719 / 2009 ( S Res )

¶7

Between:

¶8

Smt Wajidatabassum, 47 yrs D/o Bashirahemad Sayyed Asst. Teacher in Anjuman Higher Primary School, Dharwad Petitioner

¶9

(By Sri A S Patil, Adv.)

¶10

And :

¶11

1 Secretary Primary & Secondary Education Govt. of Karnataka, M S Bldg. Bangalore 1

¶12

2 Secretary, Finance Department Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore

¶13

3 Commissioner for Public Instruction Education Department, Diet Campus College Road, Dharwad

¶14

4 Dy. Director of Public Instructions Dharwad Ditrict, Dharwad

¶15

¶16

5 Block Education Officer Dharwad City Range, Hubli

¶17

6 Chairman, Anjuman E Islam Dharwad

¶18

7 Secretary, Anjuman E Islam Dharwad

¶19

8 Principal, Anjuman E Islam Dharwad Respondents

¶20

(By Smt Megha C Kolekar, GP for R1-5)

¶21

The Petition is filed under Art. 226/227 of the Constitution praying to direct quashing the order dated 20.2.2009 – annexure P by the 1^st respondent.

¶22

The Petition coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the Court made the following:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Petitioner has sought for quashing annexure P –

¶25

Government Order dated 20.2.2009 and for a direction to the

¶26

respondents to regularize her services as Teacher in the respondent institution.

¶27

Petitioner was appointed by the 6^th respondent/ Institution commenced from July 1987 and got recognition

¶28

¶29

during October 2006. According to the petitioner, government has granted two additional divisions for 1^st and 5^th division in stead of granting for all the divisions as sought for by them. Several representations also have been made. The 4^th respondent also recommended for grant of additional divisions. According to the petitioner, in anticipation of additional divisions, the management has appointed the petitioner and two other persons to the post of Assistant Teacher. Government has not taken a decision to extend the benefit and also the impugned order has been passed. Aggrieved, petitioner is before this Court.

¶30

Heard the counsel representing the parties.

¶31

According to the petitioner’s counsel, he was appointed way back in the year 1995. On according of sanction and recognition by the Government, after extending grant in aid, petitioner’s case could have been considered for extension of grant in aid. Order at annexure P is illegal and contrary to the

¶32

¶33

recommendation made by the Deputy Commissioner for enhancement of seats.

¶34

Per contra, Government Pleader submitted, as per policy, , there was sanction for 1^st and 5^th standard only for one section and grant in aid was accorded. For the remaining sections, even though they were permitted to run, as a policy matter, as there was financial stringency, grant in aid was not extended. The teachers if any, transferred from Gulbarga Division to the Division where the petitioner is working i.e., at Dharwad is not covered as it was not within the scope of grant in aid as per policy decision for extending grant in aid. However, four teachers were transferred from Gulbarga Division who were all regularly appointed but worked in the regular post. The petitioner’s appointment made is only with respect of additional sections opened by them and at the risk of the management. No permission is accorded for opening such sections and such extension has been given only without extending the grant in aid and petitioner cannot insist for

¶35

¶36

extension of grant in aid. Pursuant to the recommendation by the Deputy Director, matter has been taken at the government level by the Secretary . After correspondence, it is noticed that financial concurrence has not been given for recruitment and selection and filling up the posts to grant in aid institutions.

¶37

The submission of the petitioner’s counsel is, his appointment is much prior to such notification issued at annexure B dated 20.2.2009.

¶38

As per the Scheme, if for 1^st standard A section throughout grant in aid is extended and additional sections are created either with approval or without approval, the management has to bear the expenses and question of extending grant in aid does not arise, as is submitted by the Government Pleader. The petitioner’s case has not been considered by the government as his appointment order was not in respect of the posts which has been approved by the government. In the circumstance, petitioner many not have any

¶39

¶40

grievance against the government asking for extending grant in aid in respect of his appointment.

¶41

Petition is disposed of.

¶42

Sd/- Judge

¶43

Wajidatabassum D/O.Bashirahemad Sayyed v. the Secretary, Primary and Secondary Edu Govt of

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Wajidatabassum D/O.Bashirahemad Sayyed v. the Secretary, Primary and Secondary Edu Govt of

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mallikarjun Siddanagouda Goudar Vs the Divisional Controller

Dr. A.B. Khot Vs the State of Karnataka

The Management of Veerashaiva College Vs Kumari C Padmakshi

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs M/S Bellada Bagewadi Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs M/S Hescom Corporate Office

Smt Mehaboobi Vs State Bank of Mysore