Dismissed

Dr.Thimmanna v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Feb 2023WP/24930/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the management's order appointing another individual as Principal while he was ready to forego promotion due to health. The Court dismissed the petition, holding the State Education Department lacks a duty to confirm appointments, directing the petitioner to seek remedies under the Karnataka Education Act, 1983.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; liberty granted to avail appropriate remedy under the Karnataka Education Act, 1983.

Dr.Thimmanna Vs the State of Karnataka — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 24930 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 24930 OF 2022 (S-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

DR.THIMMANNA S/O LATE ANJANAPPA AGED 50 YEARS PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER IN SOCIOLOGY SRI PARAMESHWARA SWAMY RURAL PU COLLGEE (SPSR) RAMPURA, MOLAKALMURU TALUK CHITRADRUGA DISTRICT - 577 540 RESIDENT OF CHIKKERAHALLI VILLAGE MOLAKALMURU TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 540. …PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. H M UMESH.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

Digitally signed by NARASIMHA MURTHY VANAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (PRE-UNIVERSITY EDUCATION) M S BUILDING BENGALURU – 560001.

¶14

THE DIRECTOR FOR PRE-UNIVERSITY EDUCATION

¶15

¶16

WP No. 24930 of 2022

¶17

18^TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU – 560003.

¶18

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PRE-UNIVERSITY EDUCATION, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 501.

¶19

THE SECRETARY

¶20

SRI JATANGI RAMESHWARA RURAL EDUCATION SOCIETY (SPSR) RAMPURA, MOLAKALMURU TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 510.

¶21

SRI K BORAIAH AGED MAJOR PRINCIPAL (IN-CHARGE) SRI PARAMESHWARA SWAMY RURAL PU COLLEGE (SPSR) PRE-UNIVERSITY COLLEGE RAMPURA MOLAKALMURU TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 540.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI.M.S. NAGARAJA., AGA)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER BEARING NO.S.J.R.R.E/ THI.PRA.AA.HA/15/2021-22 DATED 10.01.2022 PASSED BY THE R-4 VIDE ANNEXURE-F BEING ARBITRARY, ERRONEOUS AND OPPOSED TO LAW; DIRECT TO THE R-2 TO 3 TO CONTINUE THE PETITIONER AS A IN-CHARGE PRINCIPAL AS PER SENIORITY AT SRI PARAMESHWARASWAMY RURAL PU COLLEGE (SPSR), RAMPURA, MOLAKALMURU TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, ACCORDINGLY AS PER EARLIER DIRECTION OF THE R-4 MANAGEMENT DATED 30.12.2021 VIDE ANNX-D.

¶25

¶26

WP No. 24930 of 2022

¶27

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

¶28

ORDER

¶29

The petitioner has filed this petition for the

¶30

following reliefs:

¶31

[a] Issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the fourth respondent’s order bearing No.SJRRE/Thi.Pra.Aa.Ha/15/2021-22 dated 10.01.2022 [Annexure-F];

¶32

[b] Issuance of direction to the second and third respondenst to continue the petitioner as a In-charge Principal as per seniority at Sri Parameshwaraswamy Rural PU College [SPSR], Rampura, Molakalmuru Taluk, Chitradurga District as per the fourth respondent – the management’s dated 30.12.2021 [Annexure-D].

¶33

Sri. H M Umesh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri. M S Nagaraja, the learned Additional Government Advocate, who accepts notice for the first to third respondent, are heard on the maintainability of the petition.

¶34

¶35

WP No. 24930 of 2022

¶36

The petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the

¶37

Management, Sri Jatangi Rameshwara Rural

¶38

Education Society [the fourth respondent] as per Annexure-F. This decision reads that because the petitioner, for health and family reasons, is willing to forego promotions, and therefore, the fifth respondent is appointed as the Principal of the Institution with the directions to the petitioner to handover charge.

¶39

Sri. H M Umesh submits that the petitioner has given repeated representations with the second and third respondents as against this decision, but no action has been taken and therefore the writ petition would be maintainable. As against these submissions, Sri M S Nagaraja submits that the petitioner’s remedy would be under the provisions of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, and as such, the petitioner must be relegated to such remedy.

¶40

¶41

WP No. 24930 of 2022

¶42

There is considerable force in the submissions by the learned Additional Government Advocate especially when the learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out that there is any duty, statutory or otherwise, in the selection of the fifth respondent. As such, the petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy as permissible in law subject to all just exceptions.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

AN/-

Dr.Thimmanna v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Thimmanna 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 M Nagarathna Vs State of Karnataka

A. H. Nagaraj Vs State of Karnataka

Dr R Thimmarayappa Vs University of Mysore

Sri B K Varadaraj Vs the State of Karnataka

H.Govindappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sree Nandi Granites Vs Joint Commissioner of GST (Appeals)