Remanded

Prakash Gowda S/O Gurupadappa Patil, v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Jan 2023WP/75790/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court noticed delay in filing revision. Held the revisional authority, as a quasi-judicial body, should consider the application by enlarging the limitation period given the short delay. Set aside the dismissal order and remanded for fresh consideration within six months without embarking on limitation.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 05.11.2011 set aside. Matter remanded to Respondent No.1 to consider application within six months without considering limitation.

Prakash Gowda S/O Gurupadappa Patil, Vs State of… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP NO.75790 OF 2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 04^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.75790 OF 2013 (S-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

PRAKASH GOWDA S/O GURUPADAPPA PATIL AGE: 47 YEARS WORKING AS IN-CHARGE PRINCIPAL OF P.U.COLLEGE LECTURER IN PHYSICS SK ARTS and HSK SCIENCE COLLEGE HUBLI DIST: DHARWAD.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. RAJA VENKATAPPA NAIK, SURESH S, AND R.R. NAIK, ADVOCATES)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE.

¶14

THE PRINCIPAL, SK ARTS and HK SCIENCE COLLEGE, HUBLI, DIST: DHARWD.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI VINAYAK KULKARNI, AGA FOR R1 AND R2)

¶17

¶18

WP NO.75790 OF 2013

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER VIDE ANNEXURE-A DTD.05.11.2011 BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI DISMISSING REVIEW APPLICATION PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 OVER LOOKING, IGNORING AND OMITTING FROM FOLLOWING THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN WP.NO.20024-94-1995 DTD.23.08.1995 AND THEREBY DEPRIVED LEGAL RIGHT TO AVAIL THE BENEFIT OF JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN WP.NO.873/1990 REPORTED IN 1992 PART-2 SUPREME COURT CASES PAGE 29 IN THE CASE OF KARNATAKA STATE PRIVATE COLLEGE STOP-GAP LECTURERES ASSOCIATION V/S STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHER WHEREIN IN THE PETITIONER HAS CLAIMED SALARY ARREARS W.E.F. 21.09.1992 TO 05.06.1998 AND THUS THE IMPUGNED ORDER VIOLATED ARTICLE 14, 21, 38(1), 39(A), 41 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION; AND ETC.

¶20

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

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶23

Petitioner herein has filed Revision Application in No.30 of 2011 under Section 131 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, which came to be dismissed by impugned order dated 05^th November, 2011 (Annexure-A) on the ground of delay in filing the Revision Application and being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has presented this writ petition.

¶24

¶25

WP NO.75790 OF 2013

¶26

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the respondent-authority, being a quasi-judicial authority, ought to have considered the Revision by condoning delay liberally and in that view of the matter sought for interference of this Court.

¶27

Per contra Sri Vinayak Kulkarni, learned Additional Government Advocate contended that there is no infirmity in the order impugned passed by the respondent-authority rejecting the Revision Application as the same has been presented beyond limitation period.

¶28

Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, the petitioner herein has challenged the order passed by the Revisional Authority seeking consideration of his claim for regularisation, as he has worked as stop-gap Lecturer for a continuous period of three years. Taking into consideration the grievance urged by the petitioner herein and in view of the fact that the respondent authorities being a quasi-judicial authority, ought to have accepted the Revision Application by enlarging limitation period, as the delay is only three months and in that view of the matter, the order dated 05^th November, 2011

¶29

¶30

WP NO.75790 OF 2013

¶31

passed by the respondent No.1 in Revision Application No.30 of 2011 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent-No.1 for fresh consideration, in accordance with law. Considering the fact that the Revision is of the year 2011, the Revisional authority shall consider the Revision application at the earliest and dispose of the same within an outer limit of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order without embarking upon the question of limitation. In terms of the above, petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶32

Sd/JUDGE

¶33

LNN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48

Prakash Gowda S/O Gurupadappa Patil, v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Gowda S/O Gurupadappa Patil, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vimala D/O. Sangappa Kaladagi Vs the Deputy Director of

Lotus Education Society Vs the Principal Secretary

Sri.Hanamanth Bhimashi Thimmanagol Vs the Union of India

Rudramma Basappa Degree College Vs the State of Karnataka

Hanumanth S/O Nagappa Angargatti, Vs the State of Karnataka

Sharif S/O Khansab Nadaf Vs the State of Karnataka