Disposed

Sri Ganapathi Bajanthri v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Apr 2022WP/5998/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by teachers against a new government policy stipulating qualifications for posts after the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal refused interim relief. The court directed petitioners to approach the competent authority with individual representations regarding exceptions and directed them not to be disturbed from current postings pending decision.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to file individual representations with the competent authority; they shall not be disturbed from current place of posting pending disposal.

Sri Ganapathi Bajanthri Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.5998/2022 (S-KSAT)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI GANAPATHI BAJANTHRI S/O LAXMAN BAJANTHRI, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC: SUBJECT INSPECTOR, DDPI OFFICE, VIJAYAPURA, R/AT C/O N Y DEVANAGAVI, H NO.41, WARD NO.22, SHAPAL PARK, RING ROAD, VIJAYAPURA-586109.

¶11

HABIBULLA S/O ABDULGANI FAROOQUI, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC: SUBJECT INSPECTOR, DDPI OFFICE, GADAG, DIST; GADAG, R/AT 17/A2 HATHAL GERI NAKA, CHURCH OPP. ROAD, GADAG -BETAGERI-582102

¶12

BABU N CHITTAPURKAR S/O NABISAB CHITTAPURKAR, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC: ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, MID-DAY-MEALS, TALUK PANCHAYAT, JEWARGI,

¶13

¶14

DIST: KALABURAGI, R/AT H NO.30, NRUPATHUNGA COLONY, SHAHABAD ROAD, KALABURAGI-585103

¶15

THAKARU CHAVAN S/O RAMAJI CHAVAN, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC: ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, MID-DAY-MEALS, CHINCHOLI TALUK PANCHAYAT, TQ; CHINCHOLI, DIST; KALABURAGI, R/AT CHANDU NAYAK TANDA, POST: SADIPURA, TQ: CHINCHOLI, DIST: KALABURAGI-585103

¶16

SMT JAYASHREE D/O FAKEERAPPA VARUR, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC: ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, MID-DAY-MEALS, HUBLI TALUK PANCHAYAT, TQ;HUBLI DIST: DHARWAD, R/AT H NO.13, NEAR J K SCHOOL, MRUTYUNJAYANAGAR, HUBLI-580032.

¶17

... PETITIONERS

¶18

(BY SRI S.P.KULKARNI, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI GURUPADAPPA GOLAPPA CHAGASHETTY, ADV.)

¶19

AND:

¶20

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, (PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION), M S BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

¶21

¶22

THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, K R CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560001.

¶23

THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, DHARWAD-580001

¶24

THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, KALABURAGI-585103

¶25

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION (ADMINISTRATION) KALABURAGI-585103.

¶26

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION (ADMINISTRATION) VIJAYAPURA-586101

¶27

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION (ADMINISTRATION) DHARWAD-585103

¶28

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION (ADMINISTRATION) GADAG-582102

¶29

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYAT, DHARWAD-580001

¶30

¶31

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYAT KALABURAGI-585102

¶32

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYAT, VIJAYAPURA-586109.

¶33

... RESPONDENTS

¶34

(BY SMT. SHILPA S.GOGI, HCGP FOR R-1 TO R8.)

¶35

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 24/01/2022 MADE IN APPLICATION NOS. 201-205/2022 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO ISSUING ONLY NOTICE TO THE RESPONDENTS AND NOT GRANTING ANY INTERIM ORDER OR INDIRECTLY REFUSING TO GRANT INTERIM ORDER IN THE SAID APPLICATIONS, BEING ARBITRARY ERRONEOUS AND OPPOSED TO LAW, EQUITY AND JUSTICE (ANNEXURE-A) ETC.

¶36

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ‘ORDERS’ THIS DAY, G.NARENDAR J, MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

Heard the learned Senior counsel Sri S P Kulkarni

¶39

along with the counsel for the petitioners.

¶40

The petitioners are all teachers and holding

¶41

specified posts and that presently a new policy has been framed by the government whereby certain qualifications have been stipulated for a teacher to hold a specified post.

¶42

¶43

Being aggrieved the petitioners had approached the tribunal and the tribunal has failed to consider their prayer for interim relief. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶44

During the course of arguments the learned HCGP would submit that the rules also provide for certain exceptions from the rigor of the new rules and if the petitioners’ case falls within the exceptions the petitioners have no cause for worry. It apparently involves adjudication of facts, that is, as to whether they fall within the exceptions provided or not. In our considered opinion the said exercise could be more effectively and expeditiously carried out by the respondents themselves. In that view of the matter, we deem it appropriate to direct the petitioners to approach the second respondent, the competent authority, by way of a representation stating their individual cases so as to enable the competent authority to take a decision as to whether they fall within the exceptions carved out or not. The learned Senior counsel would also concur

¶45

¶46

with the above. In that view of the matter, liberty is granted to the petitioners to make a representation setting out their independent cases. The representation shall be in the individual capacity and the same shall not be a common representation. All the petitioners would submit their independent individual representations. If the said representations are made within one week from today, the same shall be considered and disposed of within four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation.

¶47

It is made clear that till the consideration and

¶48

disposal of the representations the petitioners shall not be disturbed from their current place of posting. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶49

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

ykl CT-HR

Sri Ganapathi Bajanthri v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ganapathi Bajanthri 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 State of Karnataka Vs Sri. Niranjana S

Sri. Shrirama Vs the State of Karnataka

The State of Karnataka Vs Smt Shahanajunnisa

Sri. Krishnappa. H. R. Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Jyothi B R Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Jenifer Lolita.C Vs the State of Karnataka