Disposed

Manjunatha H S v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Jul 2021WP/43902/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenged an order of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal. The petitioner sought reversal of the Tribunal's dismissal of his application for in-service selection as a teacher. Without adjudicating on merits, the High Court disposed of the petition directing the respondents to decide the petitioner's representation r

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; respondents directed to decide the representation dated 03.04.2018 regarding TCH qualification marks within six months.

Manjunatha H S Vs the State of Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF JULY, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY WRIT PETITION NO.43902/2018 (S-KAT)

¶8

BETWEEN

¶9

1 . MANJUNATHA H S S/O. LATE SIDDAPPA H, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, WORKING AS GRADUATE PRIMARY TEACHER, GOVT. UPGRADED HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, ECHAGHATTA, DAVANAGERE SOUTH RANGE, DAVANAGERE-577050

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

(By Sri : BASAVARAJA PATEL G K, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND

¶13

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

¶14

2 . THE DIRECTOR DEPT. OF PRIMARY EDUCATION, PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

¶15

3 . THE SELECTION AUTHORITY AND DEPUTY DIRECTOR

¶16

¶17

PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS (ADMN) NEAR AMBEDKAR CIRCLE, DAVANAGERE-577016.

¶18

4 . CENTRALISED ADMISSION CELL (TCH & B.ED) K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560009. REP. BY SPECIAL OFFICER.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(By SMT SHILPA S GOGI, HCGP FOR R1 TO 4 )

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS RELATING TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU DATED 3.9.2018 MADE IN A.NO.6736/2018 VIDE ANNEX.A PERUSE AND QUASH THE SAID ORDER AS ERRONEOUS AND CONTRARY TO LAW AND ETC.

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA J. MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 03.09.2018 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, in Application No.6736/2018 (Manjunatha H.S. v. The State of Karnataka and others).

¶25

The undisputed facts reveal that the petitioner before this Court was an employee of the State Government. Pursuant to a Notification dated 23.03.2015 he has applied

¶26

¶27

for the post of Graduate Primary School Teacher as in-service candidate. Undisputedly, he was holding qualification of Teachers Certificate Higher (TCH) as well as Bachelor of Degree in Education (B.Ed.). He did mention both the qualifications while submitting the application but failed to mention the marks of TCH and only the marks of B.Ed. were mentioned. He was finally selected for the post in question and therefore he represented before the Department stating that he has disclosed the marks obtained in TCH while applying as in-service candidate and considering the qualification of TCH, weightage should have been given, which would ultimately results in his placement in the merit list and shall certainly alter his position in the select list/seniority list. The Tribunal has dismissed the application.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset has fairly stated before this Court that the respondents be directed to decide the representation dated 03.04.2018 submitted by the petitioner in respect of his TCH qualification.

¶29

¶30

Learned HCGP, at this stage, has stated that the respondents will decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶31

Resultantly, without adverting to the merits of the case, the petition stands disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the representation dated 03.04.2018 preferred by the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of six months from today. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on merits.

¶32

With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of.

¶33

No order as to costs.

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

Manjunatha H S v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjunatha H S 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

Mr Murtuza Hombal Vs Inspector General of Police

Sri. Naseerulla Khan Vs the State of Karnataka

Basavaraja Vs the Karnataka Public Service Commission

Sri. G. B. Manju Vs the State of Karnataka

Narasimha M R Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. C. K. Krishnaiah Vs the State of Karnataka