Partly allowed

Shri Siddarameshwar Education Trust, v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Sept 2024WP/105639/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A school management challenged suo-moto cancellation of a head master's transfer and dismissal of its appeal. The High Court held the cancellation was passed without affording opportunity of hearing and the appeal was decided on new grounds, quashed all three impugned orders and directed fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Orders at Annexures-C, D and F quashed; respondent no.3 to reconsider after providing opportunity to petitioner within one month.

Shri Siddarameshwar Education Trust, Vs the State… — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:13043 WP No. 105639 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.105639 OF 2022 (S-TR)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SHRI SIDDARAMESHWAR EDUCATION TRUST, SHIVABASAVA NAGAR, BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI – 590 010, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, K.B.HIREMATH, AGE: 59 YEARS.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI SOURABHA A. SONDUR, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, VIDHANSOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 020.

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY, PUBLIC EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, DHARWAD – 580 001.

¶16

THE DIRECTOR, COMMISSIONER OFFICE, PUBLIC EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, DHARWAD – 580 001.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC-D:13043 WP No. 105639 of 2022

¶19

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, (ADMINISTRATION), BELAGAVI – 590 002, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶20

THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER, BAILHONGAL, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 102.

¶21

RAVINDRA RAJARAM MADHALE

¶22

AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HEAD MASTER, SRI SHIVABASVESHWAR HIGHER SCHOOL, NAGANUR – 591 102, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI P.N.HATTI, HCGP FOR R1 TO R5; SRI SANGRAM S. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R6)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.11.2022 IN NO. Melmanavi NO.G5/09/2021-22/3152 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND CONSEQUENTLY ENDORSEMENT DATED 06.12.2021 BEARING NO.G5/shashiA/Varga/05/2021-22/3577 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE ANNEXURE-D IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. CONSEQUENTLY, QUASH ORDER DATED 05.0.2021 BEARING NO.G5/ShashiA/Varga/05/2021 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.4 AND ETC.,

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13043 WP No. 105639 of 2022

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

This writ petition is filed challenging order dated 19.11.2022 passed by respondent no.2 at Annexure-F and orders dated 05.10.2021 and 06.12.2021 passed by respondent no.3 at Annexures-C and D respectively.

¶30

Sri Sourabh Sondur, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that, petitioner is a management running Shivabasaveshwar Higher Primary School at Naganur and Karaguppikar Higher Primary School at Agasagi. It was submitted, respondent no.6 was working as Head Master at Agasagi school. Under order at Annexure-A dated 15.09.2021, he was transferred to school at Naganur. It was submitted, without providing opportunity to petitioner, respondent no.3 passed orders at Annexures-C and D canceling order of transfer as per Annexure-A. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner preferred appeal before respondent no.2. However, under order at Annexure-F, said appeal was dismissed on wholly untenable grounds. Therefore, petitioner was challenging said order before this Court. It was submitted, as management was running several institutions, it had sought to transfer respondent no.6 from school at Agasagi to school at Naganur

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13043 WP No. 105639 of 2022

¶32

and same was approved by respondent no.3/Director. Subsequently on an application filed by respondent no.6, order at Annexure-A appears to have been reviewed without providing opportunity to petitioner and order at Annexure-C was passed with consequent endorsement at Annexure-D canceling order of transfer. It was submitted, only reason assigned by respondent no.3 in order was that there were three sections in school at Naganur and there was already one teacher namely P.Y.Jadhav, who was teaching subject (English). Since, respondent no.6 was also teaching in said subject, there would be two English teachers at said school, whereas there would be no English language teacher at transferor school. It was submitted, said reason would call for an enquiry and could be done only by providing opportunity to management. Failure to provide opportunity rendered said order. When an appeal filed was against said order before respondent no.2, respondent no.2 proceeded on an entirely different aspect that management had failed to provide correct information or had provided incorrect information and dismissed appeal. On said ground, sought to allow petition.

¶33

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13043 WP No. 105639 of 2022

¶34

On other hand, Sri P.N.Hatti, learned HCGP appearing for respondent nos.1 to 5 and Sri Sangram Kulkarni, learned counsel for respondent no.6 sought for oppose writ petition. It was submitted that, order at Annexure-A was based on incorrect information provided by management that there was vacant post at transferee school. It was submitted, as there was no vacancy due an English language teacher being available at transferee school, respondent no.3 verified said fact and passed order canceling transfer. Since authorities were entitled to verify availability of teachers at schools where there was workload, reasons behind impugned orders would fall within powers under section 132 of Education Act and only on technicalities, impugned orders cannot be challenged.

¶35

Sri Sangram Kulkarni, learned counsel specifically contended that either before Appellate Authority or before this Court, petitioner management disputed fact that transferee school already had one English language teacher and that transferor school on transfer of respondent no.6 would not have any English language teacher. Such being the case, writ petition was on mere technicalities and was without bona-fide. On said grounds, sought for rejection.

¶36

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13043 WP No. 105639 of 2022

¶37

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and perused

¶38

writ petition records.

¶39

From above, it is seen that petitioner/management is challenging orders at Annexures-C and D on ground that same were passed without providing opportunity to petitioner by suo-moto review in absence of any specific provision under Education Act. Annexure-F being an order passed in appeal against impugned order is also assailed. It is settled law that, even if said power of review is available under Section 132 of Education Act, same has to be exercised after providing opportunity to parties.

¶40

Perusal of Annexure-C, order does not indicate that opportunity was provided to management prior to passing orders. Endorsement at Annexure-D follows orders at Annexure-C. Insofar as orders passed by Appellate Authority, it is seen that Appellate Authority invoked condition no.14 in order of transfer that order of transfer at Annexure-A was based on a mistake or incorrect information submitted by management. It is also settled law that reasons cannot added to an impugned order and order has to be tested on reasons

¶41

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13043 WP No. 105639 of 2022

¶42

mentioned therein. Fruits of an illegal process cannot be protected. Order having been passed by following an illegal procedure, would call for interference.

¶43

In view of above, impugned order at Annexures-C and D and consequently, order at Annexure-F stand quashed only on ground of failure to provide opportunity. Respondent No.3 would be at liberty to re-consider and pass appropriate orders under relevant provision by providing opportunity to petitioner.

¶44

In view of above, writ petition is allowed-in-part, impugned orders at Annexures-C and D and F stand quashed with observation as above.

¶45

Parties to appear before Respondent no.3 on 30.09.2024 without awaiting separate notice. Respondent no.3 to pass fresh orders within one month.

¶46

SD/(RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶47

AM/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15

Shri Siddarameshwar Education Trust, v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Siddarameshwar Education Trust, 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. Nagamma Fakkirappa Ballary Vs Fakkirappa Ramappa Ballary

Vishnu Ganapati Bhat Vs Union of India

Shivananda S/O Mallikarjun G. Patil Vs the Divisional Manager

Shri.Taufeeq Abdulgafar Dharwad Vs Smt.Tabassum W/O Taufeeq Dharwad

Krishna S/O Timmanayak Dalawal Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Manjula W/O Basavaraj Kattimani Vs the State of Karnataka