Dismissed

Block Education Officer v. Sri Ravindra Jokanahalli

Karnataka HC6 Aug 2024WP/10715/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal's order reinstating a school teacher. The Tribunal had set aside his dismissal because no fraud was proven regarding his disability certificate, despite a subsequent re-examination showing a lower disability percentage than the threshold for his quota.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition seeking to set aside the order of reinstation of the private respondent was dismissed.

Block Education Officer Vs Sri Ravindra Jokanahalli — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:31087-DB WP No. 10715 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024 PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA WRIT PETITION NO. 10715 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, SORABA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 01.

¶9

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION AND LITERACY, M S BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶10

Digitally signed by NANDINI D Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION (ADMN.) AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, SHIVAMOGGA - 01.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA.)

¶14

AND:

¶15

SRI RAVINDRA JOKANAHALLI S/O LATE CHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, WORKED AS ASSISTANT HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHER,

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:31087-DB WP No. 10715 of 2024

¶17

JOKANAHALLI, KADASURU, SORABA, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT, NOW DISMISSED FROM SERVICE, R/AT HOSPETE BADAVANE, SANJAYANAGAR, CHURCH ROAD, HALE SORABA, SORABA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 429.

¶18

…RESPONDENT

¶19

(BY SRI. PRATHEEP K.C., ADV. FOR C/R-1.)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02.11.2023 IN A.No-2591/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE KAT BENGALURU AS PER ANNEXURE-A.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and

¶23

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

¶26

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

¶27

a. Call for the records in Application No.2591/2023 on the file of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru as per Annexure-A;

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:31087-DB WP No. 10715 of 2024

¶30

b. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction setting aside the impugned order dated 02.11.2023 in Application No.2591/2023, on the file of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, as per Annexure-A;

¶31

Heard the learned Government Advocate

¶32

appearing for petitioners and learned counsel appearing for contesting private respondent.

¶33

It is submitted that the respondent was

¶34

appointed as Assistant Higher Primary School Teacher under Category-III B (Physically Handicapped). It is submitted that the respondent had produced Disability Certificate issued by the Senior Medical Officer at Government Hospital, Davangere showing disability as 40% to 65%. Thereafter, one R. Mohan had filed complaint against twelve Assistant Higher Primary School Teachers stating that they were got selected by producing false medical Disability Certificates. Accordingly,

¶35

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:31087-DB WP No. 10715 of 2024

¶36

investigation was conducted and report was generated wherein it was found that some of the teachers had obtained employment by submitting false medical Disability Certificates. Thereafter, the Director of Primary Education had directed the third petitioner to re-examine the teachers appointed under Category-IIIB (Physically Handicapped) and to verify the genuineness of the medical report and also to take action in accordance with law. As far as private respondent herein is concerned, he was examined at the Mc.Gann Teaching District Hospital, Shivamogga and a Certificate was generated showing that he had nerve disability which was assessed at 36.91%. On the basis of the same, a show cause notice was issued, disciplinary inquiry was conducted pursuant to which he was dismissed from service.

¶37

The private respondent filed application No.2591/2023 before the KSAT and by impugned order dated 02.11.2023, the Tribunal found that in the absence of any fault having been committed by the private

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:31087-DB WP No. 10715 of 2024

¶39

respondent, the order of dismissal was unjustified and accordingly, the respondents therein were directed to reinstate the applicant with all consequential benefits including the financial benefits to which he was entitled to. The State is before us challenging the said order.

¶40

Learned Government Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the private respondent would have been entitled for appointment under the Physically Handicapped quota, only if he had benchmark disability of 40% or above and it was on the basis of the Certificate issued to the effect that he had disability ranging from 40% to 65% that he had been appointed. It is submitted that on re-examination by the competent authority as directed by the third petitioner, it was found that the private respondent had disability of only 36.91%. It is therefore contended that the private respondent was not entitled for appointment under Physically Handicapped quota and therefore, the order of dismissal was perfectly legal and valid.

¶41

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:31087-DB WP No. 10715 of 2024

¶42

Learned counsel for the private respondent on

¶43

the other hand, contends that there is absolutely no allegation any fraud having been committed by the private respondent. It is contended that the Certificate which was produced at the time of employment by the private respondent was one issued by the Competent Authority. It is submitted that the said Certificate still stands unquestioned. It is contended that the Certificate of Disability issued could be questioned only in terms of the provisions of Act as contemplated under Section 59 of the Rights of Persons With Disabilities Act, 2016. Unless and until the Certificate issued is set aside in appeal as provided in Section 59 of the said Act, the same would stand. It is contended that the degree of disability assessed may change due to the subjective nature of assessment by different authorities. It is also possible that there is change in the degree of disability due to efflux of time as well. In view of the fact that reexamination also shows the disability of the same nature

¶44

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:31087-DB WP No. 10715 of 2024

¶45

as certified earlier to the extent of 36.91%, that by itself, will not give rise to any conclusion that the appointment of the private respondent was illegal.

¶46

It is submitted that the private respondent had

¶47

also relied on the Disability Certificate issued by the competent officer for obtaining employment and that he cannot, under any circumstances, be found fault with even if the first assessment was erroneous in any manner which is also a disputed fact.

¶48

Having considered the contentions advanced,

¶49

we notice that the Tribunal had specifically referred to the provisions of the Karnataka Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1957, as also, to the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The Tribunal found that the charge No.1, i.e. the charge that the private respondent had fraudulently obtained the Disability Certificate from the competent authority for obtaining employment on the basis of the same has been found not

¶50

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:31087-DB WP No. 10715 of 2024

¶51

proved in the enquiry. The charges proved, are charges No.2 and 3. The Enquiry Officer also accepted the findings

¶52

on the basis of the evidence tendered by the examining doctor that the private respondent had a disability of 36.91%. It is on the combined reading of all these aspects that the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the penalty of dismissal imposed on the private respondent was completely unjustified.

¶53

Having considered the contentions advanced and in view of the fact that the allegation that the private respondent played fraud or that the initial Disability Certificate had been fraudulently obtained having found against, we are of the opinion that the conclusion arrived by the Tribunal that the punishment of dismissal was unjustified is an acceptable one.

¶54

In the above facts and circumstances and in view of the fact that the initial Disability Certificate issued to the petitioner by an authorised medical officer under the 2016 Act not having been found to be fraudulent, we

¶55

¶56

NC: 2024:KHC:31087-DB WP No. 10715 of 2024

¶57

are of the opinion that the finding of the Tribunal does not require interference. The writ petition therefore fails and

¶58

dismissed accordingly.

¶59

Sd/(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

¶60

Sd/(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE

¶61

SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7

Block Education Officer v. Sri Ravindra Jokanahalli

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Block Education Officer v. Sri Ravindra Jokanahalli

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

Sri. Govindaraju C K Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Vasantha. a Vs State of Karnataka

The Karnataka Lokayukta Vs Smt Gayathri

The State of Karnataka Vs N Suma

Sri Shambulingaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri N Raghumurthy Vs the State of Karnataka