Dismissed

The State of Karnataka v. Chandrashekaraiah C.N.

Karnataka HC8 Jun 2018WA/874/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Appeal against a Single Judge's order quashing a rejection of a teacher's appointment due to degree equivalence issues. The High Court dismissed the appeal on limitation and merits, upholding the lower court's finding that the open university degree was recognized by RCI/NCTE. Period for final decision restarted from service to Respondent No.2.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal dismissed on limitation and merits; period for appointment read from date of service to Commissioner.

The State of Karnataka Vs Chandrashekaraiah C.N. — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2018)

¶1

W.A.No.874/2018

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2018

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT

¶8

WRIT APPEAL NO.874 OF 2018 (S-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶11

THE COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, NEW PUBLIC OFFICES, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, K.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶12

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, PRIMARY EDUCATION, NEW PUBLIC OFFICES, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, K.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶13

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, TUMKUR SOUTH DISTRICT, TUMKUR – 572 101.

¶14

W.A.No.874/2018

¶15

¶16

THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER, TURUVEKERE TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT -572227 ...APPELLANTS

¶17

(BY SRI.VENKATESH DODDERI, AGA)

¶18

AND:

¶19

CHANDRASHEKARAIAH C.N. S/O NARASIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, ASSISTANT MASTER, NEHRU VIDYA SHALA HIGH SCHOOL, SEEGEHALLI, TURUVEKRE TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT;

¶20

RESIDING AT CHEERANAHALLI, NARANAHALLI POST, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 213.

¶21

ADICHUNCHANAGIRI SHIKSHANA TRUST (R), ADICHUNCHANAGIRI KSHETRA, NAGAMANGALA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 432.

¶22

NEHRU VIDYA SHALA HIGH SCHOOL, SEEGEHALLI, TURUVEKERE TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 213 REPRESENTED BY ITS HEAD MASTER

¶23

... RESPONDENTS

¶24

¶25

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL AND TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 08.11.2016 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE W.P.NO.49295/2014 (S-RES).

¶26

THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, KRISHNA S. DIXIT.J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.A.No.874/2018

J U D G M E N T

In this State appeal, challenge is laid to the judgment and order dated 08.11.2016 rendered by the learned Single Judge, whereby Writ Petition No.49295/2014 (S-Res) filed by 1^st respondent herein came to be allowed directing 3^rd appellant –Director of Public Instructions to consider the proposal for approving the appointment of the said 1^st respondent for the Grant-in-Aid, within three weeks from the date of receipt of the said proposal from 2^nd respondent – Adichunchunagiri Shikshana Trust.

¶31

This appeal is reportedly time barred by a period of 450 days. An application seeking condonation of delay has been filed stating usual ground that the delay occurred for processing the file at different steps and levels. However, it is noticed that the appeal suffers from an excessive delay of 450 days and it is difficult to find cogent and convincing reason for such an excessive delay of over one year. In this view of the matter, the appeal is required to be dismissed on the ground of delay alone. However, in the interest of justice, we have

¶32

W.A.No.874/2018

¶33

¶34

gone through the record to examine if there be any meritorious issue worth consideration.

¶35

Having heard learned Additional Government Advocate

¶36

and having examined the record, we find no case for interference even on merits.

¶37

The brief facts of the case are:

¶38

a) That the 2^nd respondent –Trust runs the 3^rd respondentHigh School at Seegehalli inTumkur District. The said school having been recognized and admitted to Grant-in-Aid, appointed the 1^st respondent herein to the post of Assistant Teacher in the vacancy reserved for the members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes.

¶39

b) The 2^nd respondent Trust submitted the proposal seeking approval for appointment of all the candidates including the 1^st respondent herein and the jurisdictional Block Education Officer ie., the 5^th appellant herein, forwarded the same recommending for approval at the hands of the authorities concerned. The Screening Committee too concurred with the recommendation of the said Block Education Officer.

¶40

W.A.No.874/2018

¶41

¶42

c) The appellant No.3 herein ie., the Director of Public Instructions, vide endorsement dated 01.07.2014, rejected the said proposal for approval ostensibly on the ground that the degree in B.A. (special education) secured by the 1^st respondent from Madhya Pradesh (Bhoj) University, Bhopal was not equivalent to a degree secured from a regular/traditional University.

¶43

d) The 1^st respondent challenged the above endorsement dated 01.07.2014 in W.P.No.49295/2014. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment and order has quashed the said endorsement with a direction to the 2^nd respondentDirector of Public Instruction to consider the proposal for approval of his appointment for recognition and Grant-in-Aid within a time frame.

¶44

The learned Additional Government Advocate Sri

¶45

Venkatesh Dodderi submits that the endorsement impugned in the writ petition is unassailable inasmuch as the degree obtained by respondent No.1 (writ petitioner) had been that of Bachelor of Education in Special Education (B.Ed., SEDE) in the disability area of visual impairment; and such a degree

¶46

W.A.No.874/2018

¶47

¶48

was not of eligibility for teaching the subjects at the level of high school from 8^th to 10^th standard. Learned Additional Government Advocate further submits that B.Ed. examination conducted by the aforesaid Open University was not equivalent to Karnataka State General B.Ed. examination.

¶49

We are not impressed by the arguments so made inasmuch as the learned Single Judge has duly considered the relevant aspects of the matter in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the impugned order, the relevant portion whereof reads as

¶50

under :

¶51

“ xxx xxx

¶52

According to the said provision, the eligibility criteria for appointment as a Teacher is to be established by the authority constituted by the Academic Authority authorized by the Central Government. According to the Notification dated 31.3.2010, the Central Government has appointed the NCTE as the Academic Authority. Thus, it is for the NCTE to prescribe the eligibility for the appointment of a teacher. According to the Notification dated 23.8.2010, issued by the NCTE, a person with B.Ed. (Special Education) is certainly eligible for being appointed as a General Teacher, provided his degree is recognised by the RCI. Undoubtedly, the B.Ed Degree earned by the petitioner from Madhya Pradesh Bhoj (Open) University, is recognised by the RCI. Thus,

¶53

W.A.No.874/2018

¶54

¶55

the petitioner does have the eligibility requirement as laid down by the NCTE. Since according to the Act, the power to lay down the eligibility requirement rests solely with the NCTE, the Academic Authority, the State is not justified in claiming that it is not bound by the eligibility criteria as established by the NCTE

¶56

7. Since the petitioner possess the qualification laid down by the NCTE, obviously the endorsement is legally unsustainable. For, according to respondent No.3, the petitioner does not possess an eligibility which is recognised by the State for the post of General Teacher. However, the said observation is contrary to the requirement of law as prescribed by Section 23 of the Act, read with the Notification issued by NCTE.”.

¶57

The learned Single Judge has consciously taken note of the provisions contained in Section 23 of the Right to Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and has found that the B.Ed. degree earned by the petitioner from Madhya Pradesh Bhoj (Open) University was recognised by the Rehabilitation Council of India and hence, the respondent No.1 (writ petitioner) was having the eligibility requirement as laid down by the National Council for Teacher Education.

¶58

W.A.No.874/2018

¶59

¶60

We are unable to find any such infirmity in the order so passed by the learned Single Judge as to consider interference in intra Court appeal. Therefore, this appeal is required to be dismissed on merits too.

¶61

In view of the above, this appeal is dismissed on limitation as also on merits. However, in the interest of justice, it is provided that the period prescribed in the impugned order for sending the proposal for appointment of respondent No.1 (writ petitioner) and for taking a final decision

¶62

on the same shall be reckoned from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment by the appellant No.2 (respondent No.2)

¶63

– Commissioner of Public Instructions.

¶64

The pending interlocutory application also stands disposed of.

¶65

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

¶66

Sd/- JUDGE

¶67

Snb/

The State of Karnataka v. Chandrashekaraiah C.N.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Karnataka v. Chandrashekaraiah C.N.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishna Bhat Vs State of Karnataka

Tiju Abraham Kuruvilla Vs the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal

R Rajanna Vs the Senior Geologist

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri a. S. Katti Mandaiah

Sri.T.S.Viswanathan Vs Bank of Baroda

The State of Karnataka Vs Smt. Kamalamma