Dismissed

Sri. D.v.Govinda Swamy v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Mar 2021WP/54221/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging order of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal refusing to count petitioner's past service for leave and pension. Court held petitioner must comply with mandatory resignation rules under KCSR for a fresh appointment, thus dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; pending income tax applications disposed of accordingly. No past service counting granted.

Sri. D.v.Govinda Swamy Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.DESAI

¶7

W.P.No.54221/2016 (S – KAT)

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

SRI D.V.GOVINDA SWAMY S/O SRI VENKATAYYA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, PRESENTLY WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER, GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL, MAKONAHALLY, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT, R/AT C/O SRI CHANDRASHEKAR, BESIDE EXCISE DEPARTMENT BUILDING, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI VIJAYA KUMAR, ADV.)

¶12

AND :

¶13

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, SACHIVALAYA - II, BENGALURU-560001

¶14

2 . THE COMMISSIONER FOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, NEW PUBLIC OFFICE,

¶15

- 2 -

¶16

NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560001

¶17

3 . THE DIVISIONAL SECRETARY AND EX-OFFICIO JOINT DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, MYSURU DIVISION, MYSURU-570001

¶18

4 . THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS ( ADMINISTRATION), CHIKMAGALUR, CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577101 …RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI LAXMINARAYAN, AGA.)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS RELATING TO ISSUE OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20.07.2016 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION No.2631/2010 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW THE PETITION AS PRAYED FOR.

¶21

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, S. SUJATHA, J ., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The petitioner has challenged the order dated

¶24

20.07.2016 passed by the Karnataka State

¶25

Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (‘Tribunal’ for short) in Application No.2631/2010, whereby the application

¶26

filed by the petitioner questioning the endorsement dated 05.08.2009 issued by the respondent No.3 and

¶27

¶28

the order dated 28.01.2010 issued by the respondent No.4 has been dismissed.

¶29

Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner

¶30

was selected and appointed as the Secondary School Assistant, Grade – II with Rural Weightage and was posted to work in the Government High School, Bennur, Belur Taluk of Hassan District. He reported for duty on 01.06.1999. Pursuant to the decision of the Hon’ble

¶31

Apex Court striking down Rule 3-B of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 relating to the grant of weightage for rural candidates, the petitioner was relieved of his duties on 06.08.2003 in view of the Official Memorandum dated 24.07.2003 issued by the respondent No.3. Subsequently, special rules were promulgated for absorption of candidates, who have been appointed with rural weightage marks and accordingly the petitioner reported for duty on 27.11.2003.

¶32

¶33

Pursuant to the notification issued on

¶34

07.08.2003 for fresh selection of the candidates to the

¶35

posts of Secondary School Assistant, Grade – II, the petitioner applied and was selected as Secondary School Assistant, Grade – II by the respondent No.4 on 19.02.2004. Thereafter, he reported for his duty in the newly appointed post by tendering his resignation on 21.02.2004 which came to be recorded in the Service Register as contended by the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is the rejection of his request for counting past service rendered by him from 01.06.1999 to 19.02.2004. Being aggrieved by the endorsement dated 05.08.2009 issued by the respondent No.3 and the order dated 28.01.2010 issued by the respondent No.4, in this regard, the petitioner approached the Tribunal for claiming appropriate reliefs which came to be rejected. Hence, this writ petition.

¶36

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner

¶38

vehemently argued that the petitioner had applied for the post of Secondary School Assistant, Grade – II when he was not in service. The last date for receipt of the application was 23.03.2003 as per the notification dated 07.08.2003 and the competent authority having sanctioned the leave for him to attend the counseling, it would be suffice to hold that the petitioner had obtained permission from the competent authority as per Rule 252(b) of the KCSR. The Tribunal rejected the application on technical grounds denying the benefits of counting the past service for leave and pension which indeed was extended to him on his absorption as per prevailing special rules. Thus, the learned counsel sought for extending the leave and pensionary benefits with effect from 01.06.1999. Learned counsel argued that as the petitioner was working in the same Education Department, it was not mandatory for him to apply for resignation and to get the relieving order.

¶39

¶40

Learned AGA representing the respondents

¶41

supporting the impugned order submitted that the mandatory Rule 252(b) of the KCSR was not followed by the petitioner. His request to accept the resignation is said to have been made to the Head Master of Government High School, Hanumidi, Belur Taluk but not to the competent authority. In the absence of proper permission before proceeding to join pursuant to the selection made as per notification dated 07.08.2003, the appointment has to be construed as the fresh appointment. As such, the order of the Tribunal cannot be faulted with.

¶42

We have carefully considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record.

¶43

The undisputed facts are that the petitioner was selected and appointed to the post of Secondary

¶44

¶45

School Assistant, Grade – II on 19.02.2004 after being relieved of his duties on 06.08.2003 in view of the Official Memorandum dated 24.07.2003 from the very same post of Secondary School Assistant, Grade – II with Rural Weightage. It is the case of the petitioner that subsequently he was reappointed and reported to duty on 27.11.2003 by virtue of special rules promulgated for absorption of candidates. Thus, it was contended that as on the date of filing of the application on or before 24.03.2003 pursuant to the notification issued on 07.08.2003, the petitioner was not in service. Hence, seeking permission under Rule 252(b) of the KCSR is inappropriate. This contention cannot be countenanced for the reason that as on the selection and appointment as the Secondary School Assistant, Grade – II on 19.02.2004, the petitioner was absorbed under the special rules with rural weightage marks.

¶46

- 8 -

¶47

Another contention of the learned counsel

¶48

for the petitioner that Rule 252(b) of the KCSR indeed was complied with also requires to be negated for the reason that resignation of public servants has to be complied with in terms of the KCSR. The resignation said to have been submitted to the Head Master of Government High School, Hanumidi is not a proper resignation in the eye of law. Neither any resignation was submitted before the competent authority nor any relieving order was received by him before reporting to duty subsequent to the fresh selection.

¶49

Though the learned counsel for the

¶50

petitioner argued that no resignation in the same department was required, the same cannot be accepted for the reason that the post to which the petitioner was selected on 19.02.2004 is pursuant to the Notification issued on 07.08.2003 which tantamounts to a fresh appointment in the absence of seeking permission and

¶51

¶52

getting relieved from the post which he was holding at the time of getting selection. Counting of previous service would not be provided with. We cannot approve the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal has rejected the application on hyper technicalities. It is well settled that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner then it has to be done in that particular manner only following such procedure in letter and spirit. Rules cannot be relaxed to suit the convenience of the parties. No ground to interfere with the well reasoned order of the Tribunal.

¶53

In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed.

¶54

All pending I.As. stand disposed of accordingly.

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

Sd/JUDGE

¶57

PMR

Sri. D.v.Govinda Swamy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. D.v.Govinda Swamy 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

Smt R Hemalatha Vs State of Karnataka

The Principal Secretary Vs K Ramu

Smt Pramila Cheriath Vs the State of Karnataka

Miss Radhika Vs the Officer Commanding