Dismissed

Karnataka Schedule Caste and Tribes Welfare Association (R) v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC25 Jul 2023WP/11336/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging an order appointing a special officer to disburse staff salaries in an educational institution. The Court held that since the appointment was for salary disbursement and not management takeover, mandatory notice under Section 67 did not apply, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition filed to quash the order appointing a special officer for salary disbursement was dismissed.

Karnataka Schedule Caste and Tribes Welfare… — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:25762 WP No. 11336 of 2023

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 11336 OF 2023 (EDN-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

KARNATAKA SCHEDULE CASTE AND TRIBES WELFARE ASSOCIATION (R), KATEERAVANAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 096, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SRI. G. PANCHAKSARAIAH.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. S. N. BHAT., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA, Digitally signed by EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, LAKSHMINARAYAN N PRIMARY AND HIGHER EDUCATION, Location: High REPRESENTED BY ITS PRL SECRETARY, Court of Karnataka M. S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER, FOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶14

BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,

¶15

¶16

NC: 2023:KHC:25762 WP No. 11336 of 2023

¶17

BENGALURU NORTH ZONE - 1, BENGALURU - 560 010.

¶18

S.N.DHANANJAYA, S/O LATE S. NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT NO.17, 3RD MAIN, MARUTHI EXTENSION, SRIRAMPURAM, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU - 560 021.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT. KAVITHA H C., AGA FOR R1 TO 3; SRI. RAJU BHAT., ADVOCATE FOR C/R4)

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INIDA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 23/05/2023 IN ORDER BEARING NO ED 278 PGC 2019 (BHAGA-1) VIDE ANNEXURE F AND FURTHER DIRECT THE R1 TO INITIATE DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY TO THE OFFICERS WHO INITIATED REPEATED ACTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF ADMINISTRATOR/SPL OFFICER TO THE PETITIONER INSTITUTION AND ETC.,

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The captioned petition is filed assailing the order dated 23.05.2023, passed by respondent No.1 in

¶25

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:25762 WP No. 11336 of 2023

¶26

appointing a special officer by invoking Section 67 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1993 (for short, 'Act') thereby enabling the special officer to disburse the salaries of the staff of the granted institution. The said order is under challenge at the instance of the petitioner, who claims to be the secretary of the Karnataka Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes Association, Bengaluru.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, would contend that the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 is in contravention of Section 67 of the Act, which mandates that the authorities are bound to give one month prior

¶28

notice if the State Government is of the opinion that management of any educational institution should either be taken over in the public interest or in order to secure proper management of the said educational institution. Referring to Section 67 of the Act, he would contend that the impugned order under challenge passed by respondent No.1 is passed in gross violation of not issuing one

¶29

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:25762 WP No. 11336 of 2023

¶30

month's notice, which is mandatory under Section 67 of the Act. He has also placed reliance on the interim order granted in an earlier round of litigation. He would vehemently argue and contend that the petitioner/institution had benefit of an interim order during the pendency of the petition and the matter was disposed having found that in terms of Section 67(1) of the Act, the State government can appoint special officer for a period of one year. Therefore, the petition was disposed of, holding that it has become infructuous as the order staying the appointment of a special officer had already spent itself.

¶31

Per Contra, learned counsel for respondent No.4, countering the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, would take this Court to the interim order granted by this Court in the earlier round of litigation. Referring to the order dated 26.08.2021, he would bring to the notice of this Court that even in an earlier round of litigation, this Court permitted the special

¶32

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:25762 WP No. 11336 of 2023

¶33

officer appointed to disburse the salaries to the staff and teachers, and the petitioner did not object to the said arrangement. The said arrangement was in force for almost a year. Referring to the interim order, he would contend that the order under challenge again relates to the appointment of a special officer only to disburse the salaries to the staff and teachers, and respondent No.1/State did not intend to take over the management of the petitioner/institution pursuant to the order vide Annexure-F.

¶34

Learned AGA, while arguing in the same way,

¶35

has also supported the contentions raised by respondent No.4. She would point out that a special officer is appointed only to disburse the salaries to the staff and teachers, and therefore, the mandatory procedure contemplated under Section 67 of the Act mandating one month's prior notice is not applicable to the present case on hand.

¶36

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:25762 WP No. 11336 of 2023

¶37

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶38

learned counsel for respondent No.4 and learned AGA for the State.

¶39

I have given my anxious consideration to the

¶40

material on record. I have also taken note of Section 67 of the Act.

¶41

Before I proceed to examine the order under challenge, it would be necessary to refer to the interim order granted in the earlier round of litigation. The interim order granted on 19.12.2020 was modified by an order dated 26.08.2021. The modified order in the earlier writ petition reads as follows::

¶42

"Learned AGA submits that there is an interim direction given by this Court vide order dated 20.01.2021 staying the operation and execution of the impugned order dated 19.12.2020 at Annexure-G. However, it is brought to the notice of the respondent-Authority that since there is a stay granted by this Court in respect of the appointment of Special Officer, the salary to the staff and teachers working in the petitioner-institution could not be disbursed. Therefore, to the extent of permitting the Special Officer to disburse the salary, a modification to the order is sought.

¶43

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:25762 WP No. 11336 of 2023

¶44

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if a direction is given to the Special Officer only to the extent of disbursing the salary to the staff and teachers, the petitioner will have no objection.

¶45

In the light of the above, the Special Officer who was appointed by virtue of the impugned order dated 19.12.2020 at Annexure-G is permitted to disburse the salary to the staff and teachers of the petitioner-institution.

¶46

It is ordered accordingly."

¶47

Now let me examine the order under challenge.

¶48

The operating portion of the order reads as under:

¶49

¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉÃ±À ¸ÀASÉå: Er 278 ¦f¹ 2019(¨sÁUÀ-1),

¶50

¢£ÁAPÀ: 23/05/2023.

¶51

"¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ°è «ªÀj¹gÀÄªÀ CA±ÀUÀ¼À »£ÉßˉÉAiÀÄ°è, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ºÀjd£À Vjd£À PÉëÃªÀiÁ©üªÀÈ¢Ý ¸ÀAWÀ (j), PÀApÃgÀªÀ£ÀUÀgÀ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ EzÀPÉÌ ¸ÀAWÀUÀ¼À fˉÁè £ÉÆAzÀuÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, 1£ÉÃ ªÀ®AiÀÄ, EªÀgÀ PÀbÉÃj £ÉÆAzÀtÂ ¸ÀASÉå: 290/1977-78, ªÁˉÉ¥À ¸ÀASÉå: 229/2022-23, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 04/07/2022gÀ°è 2022£ÉÃ ¸Á°£ÀªÀgÉUÉ PÁAiÀÄðPÁj ¸À«ÄwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £À«ÃPÀj¹gÀÄªÀ DzÉÃ±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥Àæ²ß¹, ²æÃ J¸ï.J£ï.zsÀ£ÀAdAiÀÄ, PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ºÀjd£À Vjd£À PÉëÃªÀiÁ©üªÀÈ¢Ý ¸ÀAWÀ (j), PÀApÃgÀªÀ£ÀUÀgÀ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ gÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁ£Àå PÀ£ÁðlPÀ GZÀÒ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è zÁR°¹gÀÄªÀ jmï Cfð ¸ÀASÉå: 16576/2022 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À ¹n ¹«ˉï £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è zÁR°¹gÀÄªÀ C¸À®Ä zÁªÁ ¸ÀASÉå: 1116/2020gÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼ÀÄ EvÀåxÀðªÁUÀÄªÀªÀgÉUÉ, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ºÀjd£À Vjd£À PÉëÃªÀiÁ©üªÀÈ¢Ý ¸ÀAWÀ (j), PÀApÃgÀªÀ£ÀUÀgÀ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ F ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ ªÀw¬ÄAzÀ

¶52

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:25762 WP No. 11336 of 2023

¶53

£ÀqÉAiÀÄÄwÛgÀÄªÀ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ºÀjd£À Vjd£À PÀ£ÀßqÀ C£ÀÄzÁ¤vÀ »jAiÀÄ ¥ÁæxÀ«ÄPÀ ±ÁˉÉ, PÀApÃgÀªÀ£ÀUÀgÀ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ F ±ÁˉÉAiÀÄ°è «zÁå¨sÁå¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀ «zÁåyðUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¤ªÀÈvÀÛ/PÀvÀðªÀå ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀ C£ÀÄzÁ¤vÀ ²PÀëPÀgÀ ªÉÃvÀ£À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨sÀvÉåUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ EvÀgÉ ¸Ë®¨sÀåUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀÄªÀ »vÀzÀÈ¶Ö¬ÄAzÀ, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ²PÀët PÁAiÉÄÝ 1983gÀ ¸ÉPÀë£ï 67gÀ°è ¥ÀæzÀvÀÛªÁzÀ C¢üPÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ZÀˉÁ¬Ä¹ PÉëÃvÀæ ²PÀëuÁ¢üPÁj, ±ÁˉÁ ²PÀët EˉÁSÉ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ GvÀÛgÀ ªÀ®AiÀÄ-1, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ EªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄA¢£À DzÉÃ±ÀzÀªÀgÉUÉ «±ÉÃµÁ¢üPÁjAiÀÄ£ÁßV ªÀÄÄAzÀÄªÀgÉ¹ DzÉÃ²¹zÉ."

¶54

On meticulous examination of the order under

¶55

challenge passed by respondent No.1 in appointing a special officer to disburse the salary of staff and teachers, I am of the view that the grounds urged in the writ petition are found to be totally misconceived. The captioned petition is filed under the impression that respondent No.1 intends to take over the management of the petitioner/institution. The said contention cannot be acceded too. The culled-out operative portion clearly indicates that respondent No.1/State has appointed a special officer only to disburse the salary of teachers and staff, and this order is passed by taking cognizance of the fact that there is an interse dispute between the members

¶56

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:25762 WP No. 11336 of 2023

¶57

of the petitioner's society and that suit is pending in O.S.No.1116/2020. Respondent No.1/State has made an arrangement by appointing a special officer only to disburse the salaries of teachers and staff. Therefore, I am of the view that respondent No.1/State does not intend to take over the charge of the management of petitioner/institution and therefore, the requirement of one month's prior notice in terms of Section 67 of the Act is not applicable while appointing a special officer. In the background of litigation pending before a competitive Civil Court between the members of society, the order under challenge is passed.

¶58

Therefore, on examining the material on record, I am of the view that no serious prejudice would be caused to the petitioner/institution. The interim order was modified by this Court in an earlier round of litigation. The petitioner tendered no objection; therefore, the special officer has been disbursing the salary to the staff and teachers even during the pendency of the earlier writ

¶59

NC: 2023:KHC:25762 WP No. 11336 of 2023

¶60

10 -

¶61

petition in W.P.No.994/2021. If the management is not taken over pursuant to an interim order, I am of the view

¶62

that no serious prejudice will be caused to the petitioner.

¶63

For the forgoing reasons, I pass the following:

¶64

ORDER

¶65

The writ petition is dismissed.

¶66

Sd/JUDGE

¶67

hdk

Karnataka Schedule Caste and Tribes Welfare Association (R) v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka Schedule Caste and Tribes Welfare Association (R) v. 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

Pakeerappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt Prasavi a N Vs Sri Lokesh N

Lakshmidevamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner

S Venkataswamy Vs Deputy Commissioner

Anatha Sevashrama Trust (R) Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Jayalakshmamma Vs the State of Karnataka