Disposed

Smt. Saroja D/O Hanamanthgouda Timmangoudar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Dec 2022WP/101366/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held a writ petition maintainable against a private unaided school. Ordered the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation regarding service extension to age 60 based on a government memo, granting liberty to claim arrears.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent to consider representation for service till age 60; granted liberty to file request for salary arrears.

Smt. Saroja D/O Hanamanthgouda Timmangoudar Vs… — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 101366 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 101366 OF 2022 (S-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. SAROJA D/O HANAMANTHGOUDA TIMMANGOUDAR AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. ASSISTANT TEACHER AT V S PILLAY, ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOL, HUBLI, R/O VIDYANAGAR, HUBLI-21 TAL HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER PUBLIC INSTRUCTION DHARWAD-580001

¶14

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS DIST. DHARWAD-580001.

¶15

THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER HUBLI DHARWAD CITY ZONE, DIST. DHARWAD PIN-580001

¶16

THE NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS PANEL HUBLI-DHARWAD, PIN-580001

¶17

¶18

WP No. 101366 of 2022

¶19

DHARWAD DISTRICT UNAIDED ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOL EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSOSICATION DHARWAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE -PRESIDENT, R. RANJAN R/O AKSH BUILDING, V CROSS, II MAIN NARAYANPUR, DHARWAD-580001

¶20

THE C.E.O KARNATAKA GUJARAT SEVA SAMAJ TRUSTS V.S. PILLAY ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOL, SMT. NIRMALA K THAKKAR HIGH SCHOOL, SHANTI COLONY HUBLI, PIN-580032

¶21

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. SURESH S. GUNDI, ADVOCATE FOR R7; NOTICE TO R5 AND R6 DISPENSED WITH)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED PRAYING TO, WHEREFORE, THE PETITIONER MOST RESPECTFULLY PRAYS THAT THE HON BLE COURT BE PLEASE TO, I. ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.7 AUTHORITIES TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11/11/2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-H, AND ALLOW THE PETITIONER TO CONTINUE THE SERVICE TILL THE AGE OF 60 YEARS AND PAY THE REMAINING SALARY AT THE EARLIEST.

¶23

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

¶25

WP No. 101366 of 2022

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Kannada Teacher in the respondent No.7-Institution on 01.06.2005 and continues to work till today. The respondent No.4 issued a memo dated 25.03.2016 with regard to the service protection in the matter of finance and other facilities to the staff working in un-aided private primary and secondary schools. In light of the said memo the petitioner submitted a representation with the respondent No.7 to continue her service till she attains the age of 60 years. The petitioner’s grievance is that the said representation has not been considered.

¶28

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.7 is under an obligation to consider the representation in light of the memo issued by respondent No.4. However, the respondent No.7 without any valid reasons has not acted on the said representation. She further submits that the writ petition a against private un-aided school is maintainable, which is

¶29

¶30

WP No. 101366 of 2022

¶31

performing the public duty in the matter education and employment. In support she places reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of MARWARI

¶32

BALIKA VIDYALAYA Vs. ASHA SRIVASTAVA AND OTHERS reported in (2020) 14 SCC 449: 2019 Online SC 408.

¶33

3. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for respondent submits that the writ against the private un-aided institution is not maintainable as it does not come under the definition of State as defined under Article 12 of the constitution of India. He further submits that the in the absence of any provision extending the age of superannuation to 60 years, the representation submitted cannot be considered.

¶34

4. I have examined the submissions made by the

¶35

learned counsel for the parties.

¶36

¶37

WP No. 101366 of 2022

¶38

5. The Hon’ble supreme Court in the case of

¶39

MARWARI BALIKA VIDYALAYA supra at para 15 and 16 as held as follows:

¶40

“15. Writ application was clearly maintainable in view of aforesaid discussion and more so in view of the decision of this Court in Ramesh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab [Ramesh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab, (2012) 12 SCC 331 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 456 : 4 SCEC 715] in which this Court has considered the issue at length and has thus observed : (SCC pp. 336-37, paras 13 & 14)

¶41

“13. In the aforesaid case [Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust v. V.R. Rudani, (1989) 2 SCC 691] , this Court was also considering a situation where the services of a Lecturer had been terminated who was working in the college run by the Andi Mukti Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust. In those circumstances, this Court has clearly observed as under : (V.R. Rudani case [Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav

¶42

¶43

WP No. 101366 of 2022

¶44

Smarak Trust v. V.R. Rudani, (1989) 2 SCC 691] , SCC pp. 700-701, paras 20 & 22)

¶45

‘20. The term “authority” used in Article 226, in the context, must receive a liberal meaning unlike the term in Article 12. Article 12 is relevant only for the purpose of enforcement of fundamental rights under Article 32. Article 226 confers power on the High Courts to issue writs for enforcement of the fundamental rights as well as non-fundamental rights. The words “any person or authority” used in Article 226 are, therefore, not to be confined only to statutory authorities and instrumentalities of the State. They may cover any other person or body performing public duty. The form of the body concerned is not very much relevant. What is relevant is the nature of the duty imposed on the body. The duty must be judged in the light of positive obligation owed by the person or authority to the affected party. No matter by what means the duty is imposed, if a positive obligation exists mandamus cannot be denied.

¶46

***

¶47

¶48

WP No. 101366 of 2022

¶49

22. Here again, we may point out that mandamus cannot be denied on the ground that the duty to be enforced is not imposed by the statute. Commenting on the development of this law, Professor de Smith states:“To be enforceable by mandamus a public duty does not necessarily have to be one imposed by statute. It may be sufficient for the duty to have been imposed by charter, common law, custom or even contract”. [Ed. : S.A. de Smith, Judicial Review of Administrative Action (4th Edn., Stevens & Sons Ltd., London 1980) at p. 540.] We share this view. The judicial control over the fast expanding maze of bodies affecting the rights of the people should not be put into watertight compartment. It should remain flexible to meet the requirements of variable circumstances. Mandamus is a very wide remedy which must be easily available “to reach injustice wherever it is found”. Technicalities should not come in the way of granting that relief under Article 226. We, therefore, reject the contention urged for the appellant on the maintainability of the writ petition.’

¶50

The aforesaid observations have been repeated and reiterated in numerous judgments of this

¶51

¶52

WP No. 101366 of 2022

¶53

Court including the judgments in Unni Krishnan [Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of A.P., (1993) 1 SCC 645 : 1 SCEC 523] and Zee Telefilms Ltd. [Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India, (2005) 4 SCC 649] brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the appellant Mr Parikh.

¶54

14. In view of the law laid down in the aforementioned judgment of this Court, the judgment of the learned Single Judge [Ramesh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab, 2009 SCC OnLine P&H 11755] as also the Division Bench [Ramesh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab, 2010 SCC OnLine P&H 13111] of the High Court cannot be sustained on the proposition that the writ petition would not maintainable merely because the respondent institution is a purely unaided private educational institution. The appellant had specifically taken the plea that the respondents perform public functions i.e. providing education to children in their institutions throughout India.”

¶55

16. It is apparent from the aforesaid decisions that the writ application is maintainable in such a matter even as against the private unaided educational institutions.

¶56

¶57

WP No. 101366 of 2022

¶58

6. In view of the ratio enunciated by Hon’ble

¶59

Supreme Court in aforesaid case, the respondent-Institute which is performing public functions, the present petition is held to be maintainable.

¶60

7. Perusal of the memo date 26.03.2016 indicates that the private unaided schools running primary and secondary schools have been instructed to provided service protection in the matter of finance and service benefits to the employees to the schools. It further indicates that the private unaided schools have been instructed that the minimum age for appointment is 18 years and 60 has to be taken for the purpose of superannuation. Whether the petitioner is entitled to continue in service till she completes the age of 60 years is matter which requires to be considered by the respondent No.7 in light of the memo dated 25.03.2016.

¶61

8. Therefore it is expedient to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondent No.7 to consider the representation dated 11.11.2021 submitted by the

¶62

10 -

¶63

WP No. 101366 of 2022

¶64

petitioner at Annexure-H in light of thememo dated 25.03.2016 issued by the respondent No.4 at annexure-A and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶65

9. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to submit a representation with the respondent No.7 with regard to the claim for arrears of salary and if such representation is submitted by the petitioner, respondent No.2 to consider the same and pass an appropriate order.

¶66

Sd/JUDGE

¶67

AC List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6

Smt. Saroja D/O Hanamanthgouda Timmangoudar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Saroja D/O Hanamanthgouda Timmangoudar 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

Yallappa S/O Malakappa Nayak Vs the Union of India

Lokangouda S/O Basangouda Puttangoudra Vs the State of Karnataka

Umesh S/O Laxman Ghali Vs State of Karnataka

Smt.Fakkirawwa W/O Santosh Goravanakolla Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Prema D/O Ramanna Vaddar, Vs the Deputy Commissioner

The Town Municipal Council, Vs the Deputy Commissioner