Allowed

Smt.T.L.Bhagyalakshmi v. Friends Cultural Educationla Trust (Svck)

Karnataka HC12 Dec 2023WP/51388/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition by a teacher whose appointment was rejected due to lack of initial B.Ed. certification. The court held that subsequent acquisition of recognized qualifications, accepted by selection committees, cured the defect given nearly nine years of service, quashing the rejection order and directing approval. This decision is not a precedent.

What did the court decide?

The order rejecting the appointment is quashed; the Commissioner is directed to consider the case for approval based on current qualifications and pass orders within two months.

Smt.T.L.Bhagyalakshmi Vs Friends Cultural… — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:45144 WP No. 51388 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 51388 OF 2019 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT.T.L.BHAGYALAKSHMI W/O BALASUBRAMANYAM AGED 47 YEARS WORKING AS ENGLISH TEACHER, AT SRI VENKATESHWARA CHENDIL KUMARANS TAMIL HIGH SCHOOL, THYAGARAJANAGARA BENGALURU - 560028

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SMT.M.C.NAGASHREE FOR SRI. K.G.SADASHIVAIAH., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

FRIENDS CULTURAL EDUCATIONAL TRUST (SVCK) 2ND MAIN ROAD THAGARAJANAGARA, BENGALURU - 560028.

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION NEW PUBLIC OFFICES NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU - 560001.

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER FOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS

¶15

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:45144 WP No. 51388 of 2019

¶16

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION NEW PUBLIC OFFICES NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU – 560001.

¶17

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS BENGALURU SOUTH DISTRICT, KALASIPALYA BENGALURU – 560002.

¶18

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS SECONDARY EDUCATION NEW PUBLIC OFFICES NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560001.

¶19

THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER SOUTH RANGE -1 JAYANAGARA, NEW SOUTH RANGE 3, B T M LAYOUT, BENGALURU.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT.PRATHIBHA.R.K, AGA FOR R-2 TO R-6; R-1 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-3 VIDE DATED 24.09.2019 AS PER ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITION BY ISSUING A “WRIT OF CERTIORARI”, ETC.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:45144 WP No. 51388 of 2019

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Pursuant to the paper publication dated 13.11.2013, the petitioner (along with two other candidates) applied for the post of an Assistant Master in English in the School run by respondent No.1.

¶27

The petitioner was found to possess the higher merit, after an interview, was conducted by the Selection Committee, and she was accordingly appointed on 09.12.2013.

¶28

As on the date of the publication, the petitioner possessed a Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) degree from the Bharathiya Shiksha Parishath, situated at Uttar Pradesh. It appears that this Institution was not recognized by any University. In that background, the petitioner enrolled herself into Chatrapathi Sahu ji Maharaj University which was affiliated to Kanpur University and secured B.Ed. degree in the year 2015.

¶29

Thereafter, the petitioner’s appointment was sent for

¶30

approval. The Three-Men Committee as well as the

¶31

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:45144 WP No. 51388 of 2019

¶32

Screening committee took note of this particular fact and concluded that the petitioner did possess the educational qualifications prescribed and therefore, the recommendation made to approve her appointment was valid and deserve to be acted upon.

¶33

However, the Commissioner, by the impugned order, has rejected this recommendation on the ground that the petitioner did not possess the educational qualification as on the date of the Recruitment Notification, and she had acquired the same, subsequently.

¶34

The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, is before this Court.

¶35

It is, no doubt, true that as on the date of the Notification and the interview, the petitioner did not possess a B.Ed. degree from a recognized University and only possessed a B.Ed. degree from Bharatiya Shiksha Parishat, which was not recognized by any University. Immediately, on coming to know of this particular fact,

¶36

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:45144 WP No. 51388 of 2019

¶37

after the petitioner was appointed, she had secured a B.Ed. degree from a college which was recognized by the Kanpur University and has cured the defect, if any, in her appointment.

¶38

It is, no doubt, true that it is necessary that a person who makes an application seeking appointment is required to be in possession of the prescribed educational qualifications and the acquisition of an educational qualification, subsequently, would not cure the defect.

¶39

However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it is noticed that the petitioner did possess a B.Ed. degree which was, however, not from a recognized

¶40

University. She had immediately thereafter enrolled herself and secured a B.Ed. degree from an Institution recognized by a University. This qualification obtained by the petitioner is also accepted by the 3 man committee.

¶41

It is to be noticed here that the petitioner has been

¶42

working for the past nearly ten years and at this point in

¶43

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:45144 WP No. 51388 of 2019

¶44

time, to refuse the approval would be inequitable and unfair. It has to be noticed here that the petitioner possesses the requisite educational qualifications and therefore, would be entitled to be recruited as an Assistant Teacher in English language.

¶45

In my view, therefore, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and taking into consideration that the petitioner has been working for nearly for nine years, the refusal of the Commissioner to approve the appointment cannot be sustained and consequently, the same is quashed .

¶46

The Commissioner is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for approval on the basis that she possessed the requisite educational qualifications and not on the basis that she did not possess the educational qualification as on the date of the notification and pass appropriate orders within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶47

¶48

NC: 2023:KHC:45144 WP No. 51388 of 2019

¶49

The writ petition is accordingly allowed .

¶50

It is made clear that this order is passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and the same shall not be treated as precedent in any other

¶51

case.

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

RK Ct: SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47

Smt.T.L.Bhagyalakshmi v. Friends Cultural Educationla Trust (Svck)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.T.L.Bhagyalakshmi v. Friends Cultural Educationla Trust (Svck)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr Darshan B B Vs Mandya Institute of

Smt Nagadevi Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Santosh Mallanagouda Meti Vs the General Manager

Shri T Thimmaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. T. Shankar Vs Karnataka State Teachers Benefits Fund

Dr. P. Manjunatha Vs Chancellor