Disposed

Rotary Education Society v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC26 Jul 2021WP/108426/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought permission to run 5th to 7th standards, alleging authorities failed to act on applications filed in 1997-2000. Court directed respondent to expedite consideration of representations from those years.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 1st respondent or any competent authority to consider the petitioner's case for grant of permission and approval for commencement of 5th, 6th & 7th Standards from the Academic Years 1

Rotary Education Society Vs the State of Karnataka — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 26^th DAY OF JULY 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶5

W.P.No.108426/2017 (EDN-REG)

¶6

Between

¶7

Rotary Education Society’s Sri.V.B. Limbikai Kannada Primary School, Mundaragi, Represented by its Secretary, Sri.Kotresh F. Angadi. ...Petitioner

¶8

(By Sri. Laxman T. Mantagani, Advocate)

¶9

And

¶10

The State of Karnataka, By its Secretary, Secondary Education, Vidhan Soudha, Bengaluru.

¶11

Commissioner, Primary Education, Commissioner Office, Public Instruction, Education Department, Nrupatunga Road, Benagaluru.

¶12

The Commissioner, Public Instructions, Education Department, Dharwad.

¶13

Deputy Director of Public

¶14

Instructions,

¶15

¶16

Education Department, Dharwad, Dist: Dharwad.

¶17

Deputy Director Of Public Instructions, Education Department, Gadag, Dist: Gadag.

¶18

Block Education Officer, Mundaragi, Tq Mundaragi, Dist: Gadag.

¶19

…Respondents

¶20

(By Sri. Vinayak S.Kulkarni, Addl. Government Advocate)

¶21

This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to direct the respondent No.1 to permit to continue and approve the commencement of 5^th , 6^th and 7^th std. by the petitioner's institution w.e.f the academic year 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000 respectively by modifying Government Order No.ED 292, PMC 2013 BANGALURU, dated 25.06.2015 vide Annexure-L.

¶22

This writ petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group, this day the Court made the following:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

¶25

Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.

¶26

Petitioner, who has been running higher primary school in the name and style of “Rotary Education Society’s Sri V.B.Limbikai Kannada Primary School”, has approached this Court with a prayer to issue writ of mandamus directing the 1^st respondent to permit to continue and approve the commencement

¶27

¶28

of 5^th , 6^th & 7^th Standards by the petitioner’s institution with effect from the Academic Years 1997-98, 1998-99 & 1999-2000 respectively by modifying the Government Order dated 25.06.2014 at Annexure-L to the writ petition.

¶29

Petitioner had started a Primary School in the year 1993-94 consisting of Standards 1 to 4. Subsequently, in the year 1997-98, the petitioner made an application to permit commencement of 5^th Standard and during the years 1998-99 & 1999-2000 applications were made by the petitioner to permit it to commence Standards 6^th & 7^th respectively. Though the said applications were pending consideration, no orders were passed on the said applications. On the other hand, petitioner imparted education to the students admitted during the said academic Years for Standards 5^th , 6^th & 7^th respectively. The students, who were admitted in the school, have also passed out and their results have been announced. Ever since the said years, the petitioner continued admitting the students for the 5^th , 6^th & 7^th Standards respectively. In the meanwhile, the petitioner’s application for admitting the School for grant-in-aid was considered by the 1^st respondent and vide order dated 25.06.2014, as per Annexure-L, the petitioner’s school was

¶30

¶31

admitted for grant-in-aid only in respect of Standards 1 to 4. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-institution has approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the 1^st respondent to consider it’s applications made before the competent authority seeking permission to commence 5^th , 6^th & 7^th Standard classes from the respective Academic Years i.e., 1997-98, 1998-99 & 1999-2000.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the applications seeking permission for commencement of 5^th , 6^th & 7^th Standard were filed during the Academic Years 1997-98, 1998-99 & 1999-2000 respectively, no orders were passed on the said applications by the competent authority and that has resulted in not considering the case of all the teachers who have been employed in the petitioner-institution while passing the order dated 25.06.2014 vide Annexure-L wherein the petitioner has been admitted to grant-in-aid only in respect of Standards 1 to 4.

¶33

Learned Additional Government Advocate opposes the

¶34

prayer in the petition and contends that the applications were not filed before the proper authority and therefore, no orders were passed on the said applications. He submits that, if the

¶35

¶36

applications are filed before the proper authority even now such applications can be considered.

¶37

I have carefully considered the rival contentions addressed on both sides and also perused the material on record.

¶38

A reading of Annexure-F would go to show that the Deputy Director, Department of Public Instructions, Gadag, on 17.04.2012 while recommending the petitioner’s case for grant of permission to commence 5^th , 6^th & 7^th Standards, has stated that the application seeking such permission was made by the petitioner-institution in the year 1997-98 itself. However, for the reasons best known to the authorities concerned, such applications made by the petitioner periodically during the years 1997-98, 1998-99 & 1999-2000 seeking permission to commence 5^th , 6^th & 7^th Standards respectively were not considered by the concerned authorities. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has commenced 5^th to 7^th Standards in its institution and students are

¶39

being admitted to the said classes ever since the year 1997-98 onwards. Under the circumstances, the competent authority is required to consider the representation made by the petitioner during the Academic Years 1997-98, 1998-99 & 1999-2000

¶40

¶41

seeking permission for commencement of the classes for 5^th , 6^th & 7^th Standards respectively. I find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that non-consideration of such application by the competent authority has effected petitioner’s case and resultantly petitioner’s institution was admitted for grant-in-aid in respect of Standards 1 to 4 only.

¶42

Under the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1^st respondent or any other competent authority to consider the petitioner’s case for grant of permission and approval for commencement of 5^th , 6^th & 7^th Standards from the Academic Years 1997-98, 1998-99 & 1999-2000 respectively and pass necessary orders as expeditiously as possible, but not later than a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

Kms

Rotary Education Society v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rotary Education Society 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Divisional Manager Vs D.Sunka S/O Thirumallaiah

Syed Pasha Patel S/O Syed Shamsuddin Patel Vs the State through Wadi Ps

Chowdappa S/O Basappa Vs the State of Karnataka

K.P. Umapathi S/O K. Padmanabha Vs State of Karnataka

Shankar Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri.Appasaheb S/O Satagouda Patil Vs Shri. Adagonda @ Manoj S/O Payagonda Patil