The Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a subordinate court’s order rejecting a teacher’s claim for re-deployment. The court held that since the similarly situated teacher retained was a ‘Shaalamaathe’ belonging to a distinct category, there was no discrimination violating Article 14.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P. No.10802/2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. P.S. DINESH KUMAR, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 10802 OF 2021 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
SMT. LEELAVATHI W/O SRI. GOVINDARAJU AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS ASSISTANT TEACHER GOVERNMENT HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL SULEKUPPE KAVAL-572 120. KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT R/AT NO. 730, 150TH RING ROAD KESARAMADU ROAD, SANJEEVINI NAGAR KYATHASANDRA TUMKUR-572 101. …PETITIONER
(BY SHRI. P.M. NAYAK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
W.P. No.10802/2021
2
NRUPATUNGA ROAD BANGALORE-560 001.
TUMKUR-572 101. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES, QUASH THE ORDER DTD 29.11.2019 BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.4903/2018 VIDE ANNX-C TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 01.12.2023, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The applicant in application No.4903/2018 has called in question the KSAT1 ’s order dated 29.11.2019, rejecting her application.
applicant and Shri. Vikas Rojipura, learned AGA for the State.
1 Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal
W.P. No.10802/2021
3
referred as per their status before the KSAT.
submitted that:
2 Block Education Officer
3 Government Order
W.P. No.10802/2021
4
Therefore, applicant could not have been identified as an excess teacher;
W.P. No.10802/2021
5
perused the records.
“………..I have carefully gone through the Annexure-A13 i.e., previous application filed by the applicant in No.3284/2017 seeking relief to direct the 2nd respondent to consider the representation of the applicant dated 09.12.2016 [Annexure-A10] in the next academic year and re-deploy the applicant Tumkur Taluk, Tumkur District. It is pertinent to note in the previous application nothing has been stated regarding choosing the applicant as Excess Teacher is not justified and it is erroneous in law etc. When the applicant not challenged the said
W.P. No.10802/2021
6
things in her previous application, question of considering the said prayer in this application does not arise.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
‘Shaalamaathe’ and does not fall under the category of Assistant Teacher. Therefore, the applicant and Radhamani fall under two distinct categories and the same is not disputed by the other side. Shri. Rojipura also placed reliance upon Chairman, SBI Vs. M.J.James4 and submitted that applicant did not choose to challenge her being considered as an excess teacher in first round of litigation. Therefore, she is estopped from urging that contention in the present litigation.
4 (2022) 2 SCC 301 para 40
W.P. No.10802/2021
7
Department has issued Annexure A15 stating that Radhamani is a ‘Shaalamathe’ and ‘Shaalamathes’ shall continue to work in the same School till retirement. Therefore, she was not treated as an excess teacher. The relevant portion of the
Endorsement reads thus:
“±Á¯ÁªÀiÁvÉAiÀÄgÀ ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀævÉåÃPÀ ªÀÈAzÀªÀ£ÁßV E¯ÁSÉ ¥ÀjUÀt¹zÉ, ±Á¯Á ªÀiÁvÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ PÀvÀðªÀå ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄ°è ¤ªÀÈwÛAiÀĪÀgÉUÉ CzÉà ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄ°è PÀvÀðªÀå ¤ªÀð»¹, ªÀAiÉÆäªÀÈwÛAiÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÀzÀj ±Á¯Á ªÀiÁvÉAiÀÄgÀ ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄÄ gÀzÁÝUÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀÝjAzÀ ±Á¯Á ªÀiÁvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÉZÀÄѪÀj JAzÀÄ ¥ÀjUÀt¹ ¨ÉÃgÉ ±Á¯ÉUÉ ¸ÀܼÀ¤AiÀÄÄQÛUÉƽ¸À®Ä CªÀPÁ±À«gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¢£ÁAPÀ:09.12.2016 gÀ ¤ªÀÄä ªÀÄ£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹zÉ, ¤ÃªÀÅ F »AzÉ PÀvÀðªÀå ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝ '¸ÀPÁðj »jAiÀÄ ¥ÁæxÀ«ÄPÀ ±Á¯É, ªÀÄgÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ¢uÉÚ, vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ' F ±Á¯ÉUÉ ºÉZÀÄѪÀj ²PÀëPÀgÀ ªÀÄgÀĤAiÀÄÄQÛ ¸ÀܼÁAvÀgÀzÀ PÀÄjvÀAvÉ F PÀbÉÃj¬ÄAzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ:02.07.2016 gÀAzÀÄ ºÉÆgÀr¸À¯ÁzÀ ¸ÀÄvÉÆÛïÉAiÀÄ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ CzÉà ±Á¯ÉUÉ ªÀÄgÀÄ ¸ÀܼÀ¤AiÀÄÄQÛUÉƽ¸À®Ä ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼À°è CªÀPÁ±À EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
W.P. No.10802/2021
8
a ‘Shaalamathe’ and she falls into a different category.
Therefore, there is no discrimination and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
No costs.
Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/JUDGE
SPS
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Department’s action in not considering Radhamani as an excess teacher constitutes discrimination under Article 14.
Whether the KSAT order rejecting the applicant’s application is legally sustainable.
Whether the applicant is estopped from challenging her selection as an excess teacher given prior litigation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Chairman, SBI Vs. M.J.JamesRelied on¶59
(2022) 2 SCC 301 · Who else cites this
SMT. LEELAVATHI W/O SRI. GOVINDARAJU
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY AND HIGHER EDUCATION GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS TUMKUR
P.S. DINESH KUMAR
T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court