Disposed

Sri. Kumar v. Sri. T.Raghavendra

Karnataka HC20 Feb 2020CCC/59/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Judicial summary: A contempt petition was filed for violation of an interim order directing respondents not to precipitate a regularization dispute between teachers. The Court observed that respondents had withdrawn the newly appointed teachers and reinstated the complainants, thereby rectifying the violation. Consequently, the Court held that continuation of the proceedings was unnecessary and dr

What did the court decide?

Contempt proceedings dropped. Petitioners advised to pursue salary claims in pending writ petitions.

Sri. Kumar Vs Sri. T.Raghavendra — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶8

C.C.C. No.59/2020

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. KUMAR S/O JAYARAMAIAN, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, WORKING AS KANNADA TEACHER MORARJI DESAI RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL, YELEKERI, CHANNAPATTANA, RAMANAGARA – 562 159.

¶11

SMT.SHARMILA M.S, D/O SHIVALINGAIAH M.C, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, WORKING AS KANNADA TEACHER, MORARJI DESAI RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL, KEMPEGOWDA CIRLCE, RAMANAGARA – 562 159.

¶12

SMT. SUNANDA M.S, D/O SIDDESH S.G, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, WORKING AS COMPUTER TEACHER, MORARJI DESAI RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL, KEMPEGOWDA CIRLCE, RAMANAGARA – 562 159.

¶13

SRI.THIMMEGOWDA.G S/O GANGANNA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, WORKING AS KANNADA TEACHER MORARJI DESAI RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL, MAYAGANAHALLI, RAMANAGARA – 562 159.

¶14

¶15

SMT.KAVITHA T, D/O THAMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, WORKING AS COMPUTER TEACHER, MORARJI DESAI RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL, MAYAGANAHALLI, RAMANAGARA – 562 159.

¶16

SMT. NANDINI D/O B P BASAVANNA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, WORKING AS KANNADA TEACHER, KITTURU RANI CHENNAMMAI RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL, THIMMARAJIPURA, KOLLEGAL TALLUK, CHAMARAJANAGARA – 571 444.

¶17

SRI. NINGARAJU S, S/O SIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, WORKING AS KANNADA TEACHER MORARJI DESAI RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL, HARADANAHALLI, CHAMARAJANAGARA – 571 313. ... COMPLAINANTS

¶18

(BY SMT. SHILPA RANI, ADV.) AND:

¶19

SRI. T.RAGHAVENDRA AGE MAJOR, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/SECRETARY, KARNATAKA RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS SOCIETY, KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BOARD BUILDING, 6 AND 7 FLOOR, NEAR CHANDRIKA HOTEL, CUNNINGAM ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶20

SRI. SRINIVASA, THE DISTRICT OFFICER, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, RAMANAGARA – 562 117.

¶21

SRI. HONNEGOWDA THE DISTRICT OFFICER,

¶22

¶23

SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, CHAMARAJANAGARA – 571 316.

¶24

... ACCUSED

¶25

(BY SRI. NAGAIAH, ADV. FOR A1; SRI.B.V.KRISHNA, AGA FOR A2 AND A3)

¶26

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, BY THE COMPLAINANT, PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR WILLFUL AND DELIBERATE DISOBEDIENCE OF THE DIRECTIONS PASSED BY THIS COURT IN W.P.NO.19837-889/2018 ORDER DATED 24.05.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE – A, PUNISH HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ETC.

¶27

THIS CCC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ARAVIND KUMAR J, MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

This contempt proceedings have been initiated by the petitioners in W.P.Nos.19837-889/2018 alleging that order dated 24.05.2018 directing the respondents not to precipitate the matter for a period of eight weeks, which was continued from time to time has been willfully violated.

¶30

Complainants who were appointed on contract basis through outside agency were working as teachers in Morarji Desai Residential School and Kithuru Rani Chennamma Residential School in various districts at Ramanagara and Chamarajanagar

¶31

¶32

under the aegis of Karnataka Residential Educational Institution Society sought for regularization of their services by filing writ petitions referred to hereinabove, whereunder an interim order came to be passed on 24.05.2018 that respondents should not precipitate the matter. Yet, candidates selected through Karnataka Public Service Commission who had been issued appointment orders were posted in the school shown against their names which incidentally happened to be the place where petitioners/complainants were working. In other words, complainants were displaced from the place where they were working in disobedience to the order dated 24.05.2018. Having noticed that the complainants have been continued or were

¶33

continuing in the post by virtue of the interim order, respondents have realized their mistake, retraced its steps by withdrawing the services of newly appointed teachers to the place were the complainants were working and orders came to be issued on 03.02.2020, 07.02.2020, 18.02.2020 vide Annexure – A

¶34

¶35

series. Thus, complainants have been continued in the post where they were working, which fact is also not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for complainants. In the light of respondents having retraced their steps by withdrawing its earlier order and newly appointed teachers who had been posted to the place where petitioners were working have been withdrawn, we find that continuation of present contempt petition could not be called for.

¶36

In that view of the matter, contempt proceedings are dropped. In the event of salary is due to complainants as claimed by them, they would be at liberty to work out their right in the pending writ petitions above referred to. With these observations, contempt proceedings are dropped.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

Sri. Kumar v. Sri. T.Raghavendra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Kumar v. Sri. T.Raghavendra

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. Anuradha Vs the Housing Commissioner

Sri K Prasad Vs Authorised Officer

Sri. J K Nagaraj Vs the Karnataka State Financial Corporation

Sri.T.S. Ramaprasad Vs Dr S Selvakumar

Sri Thagadaiah Vs Dr S Selvakumar

Sri. M. N. Balakrishna Vs Sri Pradipta Kumar Kar