Dismissed

Sri Beeralingeshwara Vidya Samsthe (R) v. H Manjunath

Karnataka HC1 Feb 2024WP/23753/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a private pre-university college challenging an Appellate Tribunal order that set aside the respondent's dismissal. The Court upheld the view that termination without an enquiry violated natural justice and that eligibility criteria for government colleges could not apply to the respondent's appointment in 1998.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed upholding the Tribunal's order.

Sri Beeralingeshwara Vidya Samsthe (R) Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:4396 WP No. 23753 of 2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 23753 OF 2013 (S-DIS)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. BEERALINGESHWARA VIDYA SAMSTHE (R), MALEBENNUR, HARIHARA TALUK, REPRESENTED HEREIN BY

¶9

(A). SRI. P. HALESHAPPA, PRESIDENT, SRI. BEERALINGESHWARA VIDYA SAMSTHE (F), MALEBENNUR, HARIHARA TALUK - 577 601.

¶10

(B) SRI. B.P. KARIYAPPA, SECRETARY, SRI. BEERALINGESHWARA VIDYA SAMSTHE (F), MALEBENNUR, HARIHARA TALUK - 577 601.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. KASHYAP N. NAIK, ADVOCATE AND M/S. AGRAA LEGAL, ADVOCATES)

¶13

Digitally signed by V KRISHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

AND:

¶15

H. MANJUNATH, S/O HALASIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS LECTURER IN SRI BEERALINGESWARA WOMEN'S PRE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, MALEBENNUR, HARIHARA TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 002.

¶16

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PRE UNIVERSITY EDUCATION AND J.O.C. DEPARTMENT,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:4396 WP No. 23753 of 2013

¶19

MOTHI VEERAPPA COLLEGE COMPOUND, DAVANAGERE - 577 002.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. K DHIRAJ KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT. PRATHIBHA R.K, AGA FOR R2)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS FROM THE COURT OF THE PRL. DIST AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND EAT DAVANAGERE IN MA (EAT) 10/09 AN ETC.,

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The captioned petition is filed by the

¶26

Institution/management assailing the order of the Tribunal passed in M.A.(EAT).No.10/2009, wherein the Appellate Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by respondent No.1 and the order of dismissal dated 05.06.2009 is set aside. The petitioner is directed to reinstate the respondent in the post held by him as on the date of dismissal and has also directed to pay back wages from 05.06.2009 till the date of his reinstatement in the post.

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:4396 WP No. 23753 of 2013

¶28

The respondent was appointed as a Sociology Lecturer of a pre-university college from 15.06.1998. The petitioner/institution later promoted the respondent as principal of the pre-university with effect from 01.06.2005. The petitioner/institution, on the ground that respondent was not eligible to be appointed as a Lecturer as he had no requisite percentage of 55% in the MA degree, proceeded to dismiss the respondent from service.

¶29

The respondent, feeling aggrieved by the dismissal order, approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal, having examined the material on record, was of the view that respondent was dismissed from service without holding an enquiry. The said order is assailed by the petitioner in W.P.No.33769/2009. This Court allowed the petition and the matter was remitted back to the Tribunal. After remand, the Tribunal took up the matter for fresh enquiry. Post-remand, the Tribunal again independently assessed the material on record. The Tribunal, while taking cognizance of the material on record, was not

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:4396 WP No. 23753 of 2013

¶31

inclined to accede to the contentions raised by the petitioner/Institution. The petitioner's contention was that respondent acquired MA degree in Sociology in 1998 and since the Government, while extending aid to the institution, prescribed 55% marks for the appointment of Lecturers in Pre-university colleges, the institution resolved to dismiss the petitioner as he did not possess the prescribed percentage of marks to hold the post of a lecturer in a Government Pre-university college.

¶32

The Tribunal, however, on scanning the records, held that petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in a private college and therefore, the eligibility criteria of 55% marks in a masters cannot be retrospectively applied to private colleges. The Tribunal was of the view that petitioner was appointed in 1998, therefore, it proceeded to set aside the dismissal order on the ground that petitioner was dismissed from service without holding any enquiry and the same is in gross violation of principles of natural justice. The Tribunal held that the respondent has

¶33

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:4396 WP No. 23753 of 2013

¶34

succeeded in substantiating the dismissal order passed by petitioner No.1 on 05.06.2009 is illegal and thereby held that the termination of respondent's service as illegal and against the principles of natural justice.

¶35

The Tribunal order is dated 27.04.2013 and we are in 2024. The short point that needs consideration at the hands of this Court is as to whether petitioner is justified in terminating the service of the respondent without holding an enquiry. Even in the absence of an enquiry, the petitioner Institution could not have terminated the respondent from service on the ground that he did not possess the prescribed eligibility while he was appointed as a Lecturer in 1998. The petitioner/Institution, referring to the eligibility criteria prescribed by the government for Lecturers of Government Pre-university colleges, has proceeded to terminate the service of the respondent. The eligibility criteria of 55% in the Masters degree could not have been extended to a private college. What needs to be looked into is whether

¶36

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:4396 WP No. 23753 of 2013

¶37

the petitioner possessed eligibility to be appointed as a Lecturer in 1998. If the petitioner possesses a master degree, in the absence of any eligibility criteria and a minimum percentage, the petitioner's appointment in 1998 as a Lecturer cannot be questioned by applying the eligibility criteria for appointing a Lecturer in a Government college. The petitioner/Institution having secured grant in aid at the hands of the Government in all probability, has proceeded to dismiss the petitioner, who was appointed in 1998.

¶38

All these significant details are properly examined by the Tribunal. The Tribunal was justified in holding that the impugned dismissal order was initiated on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. The Tribunal was also justified in holding that the petitioner's eligibility to secure 55% in masters could not have been examined as he was appointed to a private college in 1998. It is stated across the Bar that pending consideration of the captioned petition, petitioner is

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:4396 WP No. 23753 of 2013

¶41

permitted to discharge his duty as a Lecturer as well as a Principal of the Institution and he is about to attain the age of superannuation in two months.

¶42

In the light of discussions made supra, no

¶43

indulgence is warranted. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmities.

¶44

The writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly,

¶45

stands dismissed .

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33 CT: BHK

Sri Beeralingeshwara Vidya Samsthe (R) v. H Manjunath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Beeralingeshwara Vidya Samsthe (R) v. H Manjunath

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

Sri C Arun Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

S L Krishna Murthy Vs the Managing Director

Ramesh Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Satish R Vs State of Karnataka

Nagaraj v Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Nagaraj v Vs the State of Karnataka