Disposed

Padma Bhushan Dr Rajkumar Vidyasamste (R) v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Jan 2023WP/115/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition challenging orders withdrawing a school's recognition. While noting that an appeal is maintainable under Section 130 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, the Court granted an interim stay to protect students' education pending the appeal. The court explicitly reserved opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Stayed the operation and execution of the orders withdrawing recognition of the Primary and High School until the petitioner files an appeal within one month.

Padma Bhushan Dr Rajkumar Vidyasamste (R) Vs the… — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 05^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO.115 OF 2023 (EDN-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

PADMA BHUSHAN DR. RAJKUMAR VIDYASAMSTE (R) RUNNING PRIMARY AND HIGH SCHOOL UNDER THE NAME OF JANANJYOTHI HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL AND DR. RAJKUMAR HIGH SCHOOL NO.1256/1,6,7,8,15, H.C. GALLI, KALIKAMBA ROAD, 2^ND WARD, 2^ND DIVISION, DAVANAGERE. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SMT. DURGAMMA W/O KOOLER THIPPANNA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. L. CHANDRA SHEKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶11

THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶12

¶13

WP NO.115 OF 2023

¶14

THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS (SECONDARY EDUCATION), OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU – 01.

¶15

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS (ADMIN) DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, DAVANAGERE – 577 002.

¶16

THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER DAVANAGERE NORTH RANGE, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, DAVANAGERE – 577 001.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SMT. PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 23.12.2022 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3, AS PER WHICH RECOGNITION GRANTED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT TO RUN AND ESTABLISH HIGH SCHOOL, (NAMED AS DR. RAJKUMAR HIGH SCHOOL RUN BY THE PETITIONER) HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN VIDE ANNEXURE-A; QUASH THE ORDER DATED 02.01.2023 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4, AS PER WHICH RECOGNITION GRANTED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT TO RUN AND ESTABLISH HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, (NAMED AS JNANAJYOTHI HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL RUN BY THE PETITIONER) HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN VIDE ANNEXURE-B; AND ETC.

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

WP NO.115 OF 2023

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

Heard Sri. Chandrashekar L., learned counsel appearing

¶25

for the petitioner-Institution and Smt. Pramodhini Kishan, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for

¶26

respondents.

¶27

This Petition is preferred by the petitioner-Institution, which is running Primary and High School in the name of Jnanajyothi Higher Primary School and Dr. Rajkumar High School, challenging the order dated 23.12.2022 and 02.01.2023 passed by respondents 3 and 4, respectively vide Annexures-A and B, wherein, the recognition granted by the State Government to run the Educational Institution has been withdrawn on the ground that the Institution does not have basic infrastructure to run the school. Previously, the petitioner-Institution was granted recognition to establish and run Primary and High School. Petitioner-Institution was started in the year 1991 and complied with the conditions stipulated under the Karnataka Education Act, 1983.

¶28

It is submitted by Sri. Chandrashekar L., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Institution that, at the instance of respondents, the petitioner-institution shifted the

¶29

¶30

WP NO.115 OF 2023

¶31

school to the new locality, wherein, petitioner-Institution is now running the educational institution. In view of the petitionerInstitution having not obtained the recognition/permission after shifting the school to the new location as per the required guidelines, the respondents have issued the show-cause notice to the petitioner-Institution for withdrawal of the recognition of the school from running Primary as well as High School vide Annexures-A and B.

¶32

Smt. Pramodhini Kishan, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents contends that the petitioner-Institution has not produced any material before the Court to show that petitioner-Institution has obtained the permission for shifting and to run the Primary and High School at the newly located place.

¶33

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the fact remains that recognition was granted since 1991 and Petitioner is running educational institution after obtaining proper recognition and other required permissions. The petitioner-Institution is running classes from 1^st to 10^th Standard in the previous as well as in the present location. If this order is implemented, the education of the students, who

¶34

¶35

WP NO.115 OF 2023

¶36

are studying from 1^st to 10^th Standard will be disturbed during their Academic year, which will affect their career, therefore, the learned counsel appearing for Petitioner-Institution seeks an interim order to be granted, staying the operation and execution of Annexures-A and B respectively. It is seen that the order passed by respondents 3 and 4 produced at Annexures-A and B, respectively, is questioned by the petitioner-Institution. Therefore, the interim prayer and main prayer sought in the writ petition are one and same. Hence, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶37

Learned Additional Government Advocate submits

¶38

that the present writ petition would not survive for consideration in view of the fact that impugned order is appealable in nature, under Section 130 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983. Therefore, this petition requires to be dismissed as not maintainable. However, considering the fact the future life and career of the students would be put into jeopardy, I deem it appropriate to pass an order in favour of the petitioner-Institution, staying the operation and execution of the Annexures-A and B, wherein, recognition of Primary and High School run by the Petitioner-Institution is

¶39

¶40

WP NO.115 OF 2023

¶41

withdrawn by the respondents till the petitioner-Institution prefers an appeal in accordance with law before the appropriate forum within a period one month and petitioner-Institution to move an application before the appropriate forum for interim relief. Till consideration of the such interim prayer, the interim order granted by this court in this writ petition shall continue. All contentions of the parties are kept open. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

Padma Bhushan Dr Rajkumar Vidyasamste (R) v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Padma Bhushan Dr Rajkumar Vidyasamste (R) 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 Shilpa Vs Sri Girish K

Sri G Mahesh Vs the Divisional Manager

Hucharayappa Vs Sharadhamma

Aboobacker Vs Mohammed Haneef

Smt. Manjula v Vs T Manjunatha

Mr Malappa @ Malleshappa Vs J v Shivakumar