Allowed

Prakash Rao P Yan v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Oct 2020WP/15160/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court judge allowed a writ petition seeking declaration of earlier service for school teachers benefitting from a prior judgment. The court quashed the rejection order and directed reconsideration of representations.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 11.1.2018 passed by respondent No.4 is quashed. A direction is issued to respondent No.4 to reconsider the representations of the petitioners within six months.

Prakash Rao P Yan Vs the State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 08^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION No.15160/2018 (S – RES)

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

PRAKASH RAO P.YAN, S/O SRI NARAYANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT MALLANJE HOUSE, PANIYUR POST, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT, CURRENTLY WORKING AS HEAD MASTER, AYURVEDA BHUSHANA M.V.SHASTRI HIGH SCHOOL, INNA KARKALA – 576 121 UDUPI DISTRICT.

¶8

SHIVARAMA P., S/O GURUVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT DARKAS HOUSE, PALIMAR POST, UDUPI TALUK, CURRENTLY WORKING AS PEON, AYURVEDA BHUSHANA M.V.SHASTRI HIGH SCHOOL, INNA KARKALA – 576 121 UDUPI DISTRICT .

¶9

SUDHAKAR ACHARYA, S/O SRI RAM ACHARYA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT AKSHYADHAMA HOUSE, KEDINJE POST, KARKALA TALUK,

¶10

¶11

UDUPI DISTRICT CURRENTLY WORKING AS A ASSISTANT TEACHER, AYURVEDA BHUSHANA M V SHASTRI HIGH SCHOOL, INNA KARKALA – 576 121 UDUPI DISTRICT.

¶12

PONNUTHURAI, S/O SRI RAMAIAH A., AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT JANANI COMPLEX, NEAR AGARI SOCIETY, HALEKATTE, KALYA POST, KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT, CURRENTLY WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER, AYURVEDA BHUSHANA M.V.SHASTRI HIGH SCHOOL, INNA KARKALA – 576 121 UDUPI DISTRICT.

¶13

RAJENDRA BHAT S/O SRI SADANANDA BHAT AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT SRI BENAKA HOUSE, OPP.: RAGHAVENDRA MUTT, SRI RAMPURA, THELLARU ROAD, KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT CURRENTLY WORKING AS A ASSISTANT TEACHER, AYURVEDA BHUSHANA M.V.SHASTRI HIGH SCHOOL, INNA KARKALA – 576 121 UDUPI DISTRICT.

¶14

DINESH NAYAK S/O SRI MUDDU NAYAK K., AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT KENJA HOSAMANE, PILAR POST, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT CURRENTLY WORKING AS A

¶15

¶16

ASSISTANT TEACHER, AYURVEDA BHUSHANA M.V.SHASTRI HIGH SCHOOL, INNA KARKALA – 576 121 UDUPI DISTRICT.

¶17

RAMANATHA RAI S/O SRI BABU SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT SAMRUDDHI HOUSE, MUNDKUR POST, MUNDKUR, KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT CURRENTLY WORKING AS A ASSISTANT TEACHER, AYURVEDA BHUSHANA M.V.SHASTRI HIGH SCHOOL, INNA KARKALA – 576 121 UDUPI DISTRICT.

¶18

RATHNA NAIK W/O SRI KRISHNA A.NAIK, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT MATHRUSHRI NILAYA, NEHARU NAGARA, KADEKUNJA INNA POST, KARKALA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT CURRENTLY WORKING AS A ASSISTANT TEACHER, AYURVEDA BHUSHANA M.V.SHASTRI HIGH SCHOOL, INNA KARKALA – 576 121 UDUPI DISTRICT.

¶19

JYOTHI K., W/O SRI SUNIL, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT KADRI GUDDE HOUSE, KADRI KAMBALA, BEJAI POST, MANGALURU TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT, CURRENTLY WORKING AS A ASSISTANT TEACHER

¶20

¶21

AYURVEDA BHUSHANA M.V.SHASTRI HIGH SCHOOL, INNA KARKALA – 576 121 UDUPI DISTRICT.

¶22

... PETITIONERS

¶23

(BY SRI PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY H., ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING))

¶24

AND

¶25

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, M.S.BUILDING, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶26

THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & D) KARNATAKA, PARK HOUSE ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶27

THE COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, NEW PUBLIC OFFICES, K.R.CIRCLE, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶28

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTORS, ADMINISTRATION, UDUPI DISTRICT, UDUPI – 576 201.

¶29

BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER UDUPI DIVISION, UDUPI DISTRICT – 576 201.

¶30

¶31

6. SECRETARY

¶32

AYURVEA BHUSHANA M.V.SHASTRI HIGH SCHOOL, INNA KARKALA – 576 121 UDUPI DISTRICT.

¶33

... RESPONDENTS

¶34

(BY SRI VENKAT SATYANARAYAN A., HCGP FOR R1 – R5 (PHYSICAL HEARING); R6 SERVER AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶35

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-4 AUTHORITY TO EFFECTIVELY CONSIDER THE PETITIONERS REPRESENTATIONS EFFECTIVELY MADE ON 13.11.2017 AT ANNEX-A AND ANNEX-A1 AS PER THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN W.P. 21216/2014 AND CONNECTED MATTERS VIDE ORDER DATED 10.07.2015 VIDE ANNEX-C.

¶36

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

The petitioners in this writ petition have sought for a

¶39

direction to consider the service they rendered prior to admission of the 6^th respondent institute to grant in aid.

¶40

The petitioners claim to be the teachers who were appointed in the 6^th respondent-Ayurveda Bhushana M.V.

¶41

¶42

Shastri High School at Karkala, Udupi District, on various dates from 19.11.1985 onwards. The institution was later admitted to grant in aid. The petitioners gave representations to the authorities to consider their cases for inclusion of free grant service for all service benefits in terms of the judgment of this Court passed in W.P. No.21216/2014 and connected cases dated 10.7.2015. The respondent State rejected the cases of the petitioners on a strange ground that they were not parties to the aforesaid writ petition disposed on 10.7.2015.

¶43

On the face of it, the order of rejection passed by respondent No.4 on 11.1.2018, is contrary to law. It is not expected that every citizen who is identically placed and is entitled to an identical benefit of a judgment rendered by the Constitutional Courts under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to approach the Court seeking the same benefit as was given to others who had approached this Court. Hence, the reason given in the impugned order is erroneous.

¶44

¶45

Hence, writ petition is allowed. The order dated

¶46

11.1.2018 passed by respondent No.4 is quashed. A direction is issued to respondent No.4 to reconsider the representations of the petitioners, in accordance with law, within a period six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

Cs CT:MJ

Prakash Rao P Yan v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Rao P Yan v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karnataka State Road Vs the Deputy Labour Commissioner

Smt Shifa Mariyam Vs M/S Karnataka Power Transmission

Smt Vijaya Vs State of Karnataka

Sri H Ravi Vs the State of Karnataka

Bangalore Metropolitan Vs the Deputy Labour Commissioner

Dr. K B Eshwara Vs State of Karnataka