Allowed

Rani S. v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC25 Sept 2024WP/12974/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A private-aided school teacher's appointment was denied approval for salary grant because a criminal charge sheet was pending against her. The court ruled that a mere pending charge sheet does not demonstrate adverse character, Rule 10 does not authorise such refusal, quashed the endorsement, and directed approval within three months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned endorsement dated 15.06.2023 quashed; Respondents 2-4 directed to approve the petitioner's appointment and admit it to salary grant within three months.

Rani S. Vs State of Karnataka — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:39893 WP No. 12974 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 12974 OF 2023 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

RANI S. D/O SHIVARAJU C., AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, RURAL MULTI-PURPOSE HIGH SCHOOL, RURAL EDUCATION SOCIETY, KANAKAPURA, R/AT KALLUKERE DODDI VILLAGE, T.BEKUPPE POST, KASABA HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562117.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SRIKANTH M.P., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA, PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER FOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS NEW PUBLIC OFFICES, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, K.R.CIRLCE, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶14

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, SECONDARY EDUCATION, NEW PUBLIC OFFICES, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, K.R.CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:39893 WP No. 12974 of 2023

¶16

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, RAMANAGARA-562159.

¶17

THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER KANAKAPURA TALUK, KANAKAPURA-562159.

¶18

GRAMA VIDYA PRACHARAKA SANGHA M.G.ROAD, KANAKAPURA-562 117, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. PRINCE ISAC, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 5;

¶21

NOTICE IS SERVED ON RESPONDENT NO.6)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 5 TO CONSIDER THE PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY THE 6^TH RESPONDENT MANAGEMENT FOR APPROVAL OF THE APPOINTMENT OF THE PETITIONER WITH GRANT-IN-AID IN THE INSTITUTION RUN BY THE 6^TH RESPONDENT AND ADMIT THE PETITIONER TO GRANTIN-AID ANNEXURE-R AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:

¶27

"a) Direct the Respondent nos.1 to 5 to consider the proposal submitted by the 6^th respondent

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:39893 WP No. 12974 of 2023

¶29

management for approval of the appointment of the petitioner with grant in aid in the institution run by the 6^th respondent and admit the petitioner to grant in aid AnnexureR.

¶30

ia) Quash the Endorsement bearing No.ANU2 KA AA PROU SHA HUDDE ANUMODANE 131/2022-23 751/23/24 dated 15.06.2023 passed by the 4^th Respondent - Annexure-S."

¶31

The petitioner contends that she was appointed in the Institution run by the respondent No.6. The respondent No.6 published a notification on 12.10.2022 to fill up a vacancy of Science Teacher (CBZ). The petitioner submitted an application and was selected and appointed as Assistant Teacher Science-CBZ by the respondent No.6 on 24.12.2022. A proposal for the approval of the appointment of the petitioner with grant-in-aid was forwarded to the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4.

¶32

2.1 The petitioner contends that she was implicated in a family feud where a charge sheet was filed in C.C. No.1895/2021 on the file of the JMFC., Kanakapura for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506, 114

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:39893 WP No. 12974 of 2023

¶35

read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. This was brought to the notice of the official respondents on 03.06.2023, who placed the proposal to admit her appointment to grant on the backburner.

¶36

2.2 In order to convince the official respondents, the petitioner submitted an affidavit that in case she is convicted, she would pay back the salary received and also resign from the job. When this did not work, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 06.06.2023 to the respondent No.6 and requested it to pursue the official respondents regarding granting approval of her appointment and to admit her appointment to salary grant.

¶37

2.3 The petitioner contends that the respondent No.4 in terms of the impugned endorsement, informed her that the District Verification Committee had passed a resolution dated 03.06.2023 to drop the case of the petitioner for approval of the appointment in view of the pendency of the criminal case against her. The petitioner is, therefore, before this Court challenging the said endorsement issued by the respondent No.4.

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:39893 WP No. 12974 of 2023

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the criminal case registered against the petitioner did not have anything to do with her service and therefore, the respondent No.4 could not have refused to grant approval to her appointment and to admit her appointment to salary grant. He contended that in view of the affidavit submitted by the petitioner, the respondents could not have rejected the request for approval of her appointment .

¶41

Per contra, the learned Additional Government

¶42

Advocate has filed a statement of objections contending inter alia that in view of the pendency of the criminal case, the District Screening Committee decided to recommend to the Commissioner to approve the appointment of the remaining candidates except the petitioner. Reliance is placed on Rule 10 of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment Rules), 1977 (‘the Rules, 1977’) to contend that the suitability of the petitioner based on his or her character was one of the criteria for granting approval to her appointment. He contends that since the fact that a criminal case is pending against the petitioner is undisputed, the District Screening Committee felt that the character of the petitioner is undesirable and

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC:39893 WP No. 12974 of 2023

¶45

therefore, did not grant approval. It is contended that the District Screening Committee has the power to review and send for approval of appointment made by the Management under the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Recruitment and Terms and Conditions of Service of Employees in Private Aided Primary and Secondary Educational Institutions) Rules, 1999. Consequently, the District Screening Committee had verified the character of the petitioner in the light of the criminal case registered against her and passed the impugned order which is just and proper. It is also contended that a charge sheet is filed against the petitioner and hence, there was justification in issuing the impugned endorsement.

¶46

The learned Additional Government Advocate forcefully reiterated the above and contended that the petitioner is sought to be appointed as a Teacher and is therefore expected to have good conduct.

¶47

I have considered the submissions made by the

¶48

learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate representing the respondents.

¶49

¶50

NC: 2024:KHC:39893 WP No. 12974 of 2023

¶51

The fact that the petitioner was appointed by the respondent No.6 on 24.12.2022 as an Assistant Teacher - Science (CBZ) and that she reported to duty on 26.12.2022 is not in dispute. The alleged incident involving the petitioner was reported on 16.03.2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 114, 323, 324, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC'). The allegations primarily were against the accused Nos.1, 2 and 3. It is alleged that the petitioner herein, who was accused No.4, exhorted the other accused to commit the crime. The charge sheet against the petitioner is yet to be proved and the petitioner is presumed to be innocent until then. Therefore, mere filing of a charge sheet did not in any way demonstrate any adverse character of the petitioner disentitling her to be appointed to the post of a Teacher. The petitioner is entitled to raise all defences in law to protect herself from being prosecuted. The respondents could not have treated this as a disqualification to disapprove the appointment of the petitioner. The reliance placed by the learned Additional Government Advocate on Rule 10 of the Rules, 1977 to support the impugned endorsement is wholly misplaced. Rule 10 reads as follows:

¶52

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:39893 WP No. 12974 of 2023

¶53

" 10. Conditions relating to suitability and certificates of character.-

¶54

[Notwithstanding anything contained in the rules of recruitment specially made in respect of any service or post, if in such rules of recruitment, direct recruitment is prescribed as one of the methods of recruitments no person shall be appointed to any service or post unless the Appointing Authority is satisfied that the certificates pertaining to qualifications, income and caste etc., of the candidates are true and valid and] every candidate selected for direct recruitment shall furnish to the Appointing Authority certificates given not more than six months prior to the date of his selection, by two respectable persons unconnected with his college or university, and not related to him testifying to his character, in addition to the certificate or certificates which may be required to be furnished from the educational institution last attended by the candidate. If any doubt arises regarding the suitability of a candidate for appointment to Government service, the decision of the Government shall be final.

¶55

[emphasis supplied]

¶56

Therefore, Rule 10 of the Rules, 1977 merely

¶57

warrants verification of certificates pertaining to qualification,

¶58

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:39893 WP No. 12974 of 2023

¶59

income and caste etc. to check for their authenticity. No doubt a candidate is bound to furnish certificates from two respectable persons unconnected with his / her institution and not related to him/her testifying his/her character. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner has not furnished

¶60

two certificates from two respectable persons who are unconnected with the institution and not related to her. There is no provision in the Rules, 1977 which enables the respondents to deny the relief of approval of appointment and admitting the appointment of the petitioner to salary grant on the ground that a criminal case is pending consideration. In that view of the matter, the impugned endorsement issued by the respondent No.4 being colourable, deserves to be interfered with.

¶61

Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned endorsement bearing No.C£ÀÄ.2. SÁ.C.¥Ëæ.±Á.ºÀÄzÉÝ C£ÀÄªÉÆÃzÀ£É 131/2022-23 751/23/24 dated 15.06.2023 issued by

¶62

the respondent No.4 is quashed. Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 are directed to take proper and effective steps to approve the appointment of the petitioner and also to admit her

¶63

10 -

¶64

NC: 2024:KHC:39893 WP No. 12974 of 2023

¶65

appointment to salary grant in accordance with law. This shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶66

In view of disposal of this petition, the pending interlocutory applications do not survive for consideration and the same stand disposed off.

¶67

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶68

SMA

¶69

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12

Rani S. v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rani S. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.G.Arasaraju Vs the Managing Director

The Canara Port Workers Union Vs Government of India

Kumari K S Tejavathy Vs the Principal Secretary

C. T. Jayakumar Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Asianet News Network Private Limited Vs Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Limited

Shri Ranganath Vs the Indian Bank