Allowed

Rashtreeeya Shikshana Samithi Trust v. Dr Shantharam Nayak

Karnataka HC29 Nov 2022WP/1035/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by educational trusts challenging the rejection of an amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. The court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order, and permitted the amendment to raise preliminary objections regarding the fairness of a domestic enquiry, relying on identical precedents.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed; the impugned order of the Educational Appellate Tribunal and Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge is set aside; the amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is

Rashtreeeya Shikshana Samithi Trust Vs Dr… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.1035/2022 (S-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

RASHTREEEYA SHIKSHANA SAMITHI TRUST, R.V. TEACHERS COLLEGE, 2^ND BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560011 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, DR. M.K. PANDURANGA SETTY

¶9

RASTRIYA SHIKSHKANA SAMITI TRUST R.V. TEACHERS COLLEGE, 2^ND BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560011 REPRESENTED BY ITS HONARARY SECRETARY SRI A.V..S. MURTHY

¶10

R.V. COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING RASTRIYA VIDYA NIKETAN POST, MYSURU ROAD, BENGALURU-560059 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL DR. K.N. SUBRAMANYA

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

DR. SHANTHARAM NAYAK S/O LATE SRI DAYANANDA NAYAK, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT ‘AASHRAYA’, No.20, ‘B’ MAIN ROAD, GANDHIGRAMA MARUTHI EXTENSION, BENGALURU-560021.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. K.M.THIRTHAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶17

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.12.2021 IN MA (EAT) 20/2019 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE EDUCATIONAL APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AND 3^RD ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE AT ANNEXURE-J TO THIS WRIT PETITION.

¶19

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Heard the learned counsel Sri.Somashekar for the petitioners through video conference and learned counsel Sri.K.M.Thirthappa for the respondent. Perused the writ petition papers.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits

¶23

that the present writ petition is filed challenging the interim order dated 15.12.2021 passed in MA(EAT).No.20/2019 by the Educational Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru by which the application filed by the petitioners under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC to amend the written statement to include averments raising preliminary objection is rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioner filed

¶24

¶25

application for amendment of written statement to include preliminary point as to whether the domestic enquiry conducted by the Management is fair and proper, which the petitioners had failed to urge in the written statement filed earlier. Learned counsel would submit that in identical writ petitions in W.P.No.1001/2022 and W.P.No.1162/2022 disposed of on 19.01.2022 and 21.01.2022 respectively this Court allowed the amendment application to amend the written statement. It is submitted that the trial has also not commenced.

¶26

Learned counsel for the respondent would

¶27

not dispute the disposal of identical writ petitions.

¶28

The petitioners are before this Court challenging the rejection of the amendment application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC to include averments raising preliminary objection to frame preliminary issue with regard to whether the domestic enquiry held by the Enquiry Officer is fair and proper? If the amendment as

¶29

¶30

sought in the application is allowed, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent herein. Moreover, it is for the Tribunal to frame such preliminary issue in appeal filed under the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 under Section 94 when termination is after inquiry. This Court in identical matters allowed the petitions and permitted the petitioners herein to amend the written statement.

¶31

Following the above two decisions and as the amendment would not in any way prejudice the case of the respondent herein, I am of the view that the writ petition is liable to be allowed. Hence, the following:

¶32

ORDER

¶33

1. Writ petition is allowed.

¶34

The order dated 15.12.2021 in MA(EAT).No.20/2019 on the file of the Education Appellate Tribunal and 3^rd Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (Annexure-J) is set aside.

¶35

¶36

1. Application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC by the petitioners herein is allowed.

¶37

1. The petitioners are permitted to amend the objection statement as prayed in the application.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

NC.

Rashtreeeya Shikshana Samithi Trust v. Dr Shantharam Nayak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rashtreeeya Shikshana Samithi Trust v. Dr Shantharam Nayak

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

Sri Satyendra Vs Mangalore Refinery & Petrochemical Ltd.

Sri.K.Krishnappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Mohan B L Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Shivanna Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Shyamala B Vs the Director

Sri H S Kengegowda Vs the Chief Executive Officer