Disposed

Sri. Muga Basaveshwara S.T.Education Society (R) S v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Feb 2019WP/107781/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On a preliminary hearing, the High Court disposed of two writ petitions filed by private ITIs seeking reimbursement of student fees for SC/ST categories, reserving liberty to the petitioners to file further representation with accreditation documents.

What did the court decide?

Petitions disposed with liberty to file further representations with accreditation documents within 15 days; respondents to consider and dispose of the same within six weeks.

Sri. Muga Basaveshwara S.T.Education… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

: 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G. NARENDAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.107781/2018 (EDN-RES) & WRIT PETITION NO.108105/2018 (EDN-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. MUGA BASAVESHWARA S.T.EDUCATION SOCIETY (R)’s SRI.MUGA BASAVESHWARA PVT. ITI, HAGARI BOMMANAHALLI, TQ: H.B. HALLI, DIST: BALLARI, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, T.KOTRESH, S/O. NAGABHUSHAN, AGED ABOUT: 33 YEARS, SRI.MUGA BASAVESHWARA S.T. EDUCATION SOCIETY, HAGARI BOMMANAHALLI, TQ: H.B.HALLI, DIST: BALLARI.

¶9

SRI.MUGA BASAVESHWARA S.T.EDUCATION SOCIETY (R)’s SRI.UJJAINI JAGADGURU PVT. ITI, ITTIGI, HOOVINA HADAGALI, TQ: DIST: BALLARI, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, T.KOTRESH, S/O. NAGABHUSHAN, AGED ABOUT: 33 YEARS, SRI.MUGA BASAVESHWARA S.T. EDUCATION SOCIETY, HAGARI BOMMANAHALLI, TQ: H.B.HALLI, DIST: BALLARI.

¶10

... PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR BURJI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-01, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶14

: 2 :

¶15

COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, 5^TH FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING, BENGLAURU-01. 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, BALLARI, BALLARI TALUK & DISTRICT. 4. ASST. DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, HAGARI BOMMANAHALLI, TQ: H.B. HALLI, DIST: BALLARI. 5. ASST. DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, HOOVINAHADAGALI, HOOVINAHADAGALI TALUK, DIST: BALLARI. ... RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI.RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK, HCGP)

¶17

¶18

THESE PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE 1^ST AND 2^ND RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED:25.07.2018 FOR SANCTIONING/ REIMBURSEMENT THE ENTIRE FEES OF RS.16,500/- TO THE STUDENTS BELONGING TO SCHEDULE CASTE AND SCHEDULE TRIBE OF PETITIONERS' COLLEGES PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E.

¶19

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

: 3 :

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Learned HCGP accepts notice on behalf of respondents.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners

¶24

and the learned HCGP.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits

¶26

that, in the similar circumstances, this Court was pleased to dispose of a similar writ petition by the following order:

¶27

“Petitioners are running Industrial Training Institutes, which are affiliated to National Council for Vocational Training (NCVT), Directorate General Employment and Training (DGE&T) and Ministry of Labour Employment, Government of India, New Delhi and ITI trades and conducting training to trainees in industrial training by imparting education in engineering trades.

¶28

: 4 :

¶29

2. As per the norms fixed by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India, students belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes category would be entitled for post metric scholarship to the extent of entire tuition fee paid by them for being reimbursed to the reference institutions. Petitioners-Institutions claim that they are entitled for reimbursement of fee for impartation of ITI education to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes students from respondent-Authorities @ Rs.16,500/- per student per year as fixed by the competent authority and despite several representations made, authorities are not considering the same and have sanctioned a partly sum of Rs.2,940/- per student per year to the second petitioner-Institution, a sum of Rs.1,740/per student per year to third petitionerInstitution as against claim of Rs.16,500/per student per year. It is also brought to the notice of the Court that correspondence between petitioners and fourth respondent reveals clarifications have been issued on 17.01.2017-Annexure-E by fourth

¶30

: 5 :

¶31

respondent to pay a sum of Rs.16,500/per student per year and petitioners have also relied upon internal correspondence between second respondent and first respondent dated 08.03.2017 and communication from the first respondent to the Secretary-Labour Department dated 20.04.2017 – Annexure-G to contend that despite such correspondence between authorities agreeing in principle to pay a sum of @ Rs.16,500/- per student per year, same has not been paid. Hence, petitioners have submitted

¶32

representations in that regard on 28.10.2017, 30.10.2017 and 27.02.2017 and– Annexures-H to L respectively seeking payment and respondents have not taken any decision in that regard and as such they have prayed for suitable direction being issued to respondentauthorities.

¶33

3. In the light of aforestated facts and interse correspondence between respondents also disclosing that State has to take a decision in that regard, some reasonable time requires to be granted to respondent No.1 to examine the claim of

¶34

: 6 :

¶35

petitioners as made under representations – Annexures-H to L and decide the same expeditiously at any rate within an outer limit of two (2) months from today. Accordingly, writ petitions are disposed of by issuing direction to the respondents and it is needless to state that outcome of the decision shall be intimated to the petitioners within ten (10) days from the date of such decision being arrived at, so as to enable the petitioners to take such steps in that regard. Ordered accordingly.”

¶36

Per contra, learned HCGP would submit that

¶37

the representation is bald and devoid of merits with regard to accreditation and recognition by the concerned authorities.

¶38

In reply, learned counsel for the petitioners

¶39

would submit that the writ petition may be disposed of by reserving liberty to the petitioners to submit one more representation enclosing therewith the documents

¶40

: 7 :

¶41

to demonstrate the fact of accreditation and recognition

¶42

of the petitioner-institutions.

¶43

The submission of the learned counsel is

¶44

placed on record.

¶45

Petitions are disposed of by reserving liberty

¶46

to the petitioners to submit one more representation in continuation of the representation dated 25.07.2018 vide Annexure-E to the writ petition and the representation shall be filed within 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order enclosing therewith copies of said documents which demonstrate

¶47

the recognition and accreditation accorded by the competent authorities and also furnish the details of the students and the petitioners shall also furnish such other details as may be required by the respondents. The respondents shall expedite the consideration and disposal of the same. At any rate consideration and disposal of the representation to be filed shall be within

¶48

: 8 :

¶49

a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. The petitioners shall also enclose certified copy of this order while making representation afresh.

¶50

Petitions stand disposed of accordingly.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

gab

Sri. Muga Basaveshwara S.T.Education Society (R) S v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Muga Basaveshwara S.T.Education Society (R) S v. State of Karnataka

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

Smt. Laxmibai W/O Parashuram Beedikar Vs Shri. Sadanand Gundu Beekikar

The Management of Nekrtc, Vs Sanganabasappa

Babu Maruti Bhosale Vs the Divisional Controller

S. K. Mudagal Vs the Registrar of Co. Operative Societies

Smt. Eramma W/O Dodda Thippana Vs Smt. Mallamma W/O Late Dodda Basappa @ Basappa

Yallappa S/O Hanamappa Tippanavar Vs Smt.Lakkamma W/O Neelappa Tippanavar