Partly allowed

Sri. Manjunatha Prasad N.S v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Feb 2024WP/2491/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Guest teachers at residential schools feared replacement by fresh ad-hoc staff. Following an earlier batch decision, the court directed that teachers serving against sanctioned vacancies be continued till regular recruitment; two relieved teachers were to be accommodated in other schools with vacant posts.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners 3-6 to continue as teachers till regular recruitment; petitioners 1-2 to be accommodated in residential schools with vacant posts.

Sri. Manjunatha Prasad N.S Vs the State of… — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.2491 OF 2024 (S-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

1 . SRI. MANJUNATHA PRASAD N.S S/O SIDDARAJU C

¶9

AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

¶10

ENGLISH SUBJECT TEACHER

¶11

KITTUR RANI CHENNAMMA RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL BEGURU (ST-439), GUNDLUPET TALUK CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571109

¶12

2 . SMT RENUKA D S D/O SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

¶13

KANNADA SUBJECT TEACHER KITTUR RANI CHENNAMMA RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL BEGURU (ST-439), GUNDLUPET TALUK CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571109

¶14

3 . SRI MAHADEVASWAMY S/O GAJJANAYAKA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, KANNADA SUBJECT TEACHER MORARJI DESAI RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL, HARAVE (ST-600)

¶15

CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571128

¶16

4 . SRI MAHADEVASWAMY C M S/O MASANASHETTY

¶17

¶18

AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS HINDI SUBJECT TEACHER MORARJI DESAI RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL HARAVE (ST-600) CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571128

¶19

5 . SRI SHASHIKUMAR T S/O TIRUPATHAIAH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, MATHEMATICS SUBJECT TEACHER MORARJI DESAI RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL HARAVE (ST-600) CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571128

¶20

6 . SMT JYOTHI M D/O MAHADEVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS SCIENCE SUBJECT TEACHER MORARJI DESAI RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL HARAVE (ST-600) CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571128

¶21

...PETITIONERS

¶22

(BY SRI VIRUPAKSHAIAH P H, ADVOCATE)

¶23

AND:

¶24

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001

¶25

2 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001

¶26

3 . THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINORITIES

¶27

¶28

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE CHAMARAJANAGARA-571313

¶29

4 . THE KARNATAKA RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION SOCIETY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KARNATAKA SAHAKARA MARATA MAHAMANDALI BUILDING, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU-560001

¶30

5 . THE PRINCIPAL KITTUR RANI CHENNAMMA RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL BEGURU (ST-439), GUNDLUPET TALUK CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571109

¶31

6 . THE PRINCIPAL MORARJI DESAI RESIDENTAL SCHOOL, HARAVE (ST-600) CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK AND CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571128

¶32

7 . SRI NAGAYYA JOTEPPANAVAR S/O JOTEPPANAVAR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, ENGLISH SUBJECT TEACHER KITTUR RANI CHENNAMMA RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL BEGURU (ST-439), GUNDLUPET TALUK CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571109

¶33

8 . SRI KIRAN K S FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS KANNADA SUBJECT TEACHER KITTUR RANI CHENNAMMA RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL BEGURU (ST-439), GUNDLUPET TALUK CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571109

¶34

…RESPONDENTS

¶35

(BY SRI B.RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R1-R3; SRI NAGAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R4-R6)

¶36

¶37

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R1 TO 6 TO CONTINUE THE SERVICES OF THE PETITIONERS AS TEACHERS AS THEY ARE WORKING AS AGAINST THE SANCTIONED VACANT POSTS IN KARNATAKA RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS SOCIETY TILL REGULAR RECRUITMENT IS TAKEN PLACE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE KARNATAKA RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS SOCIETY (CADRE AND RECRUITMENT) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS, 2021 AND ETC.,

¶38

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

¶39

ORDER

¶40

The petitioners are teaching staff serving at respondent Nos.5 and 6 – residential schools. The petitioners have approached this Court with an apprehension that respondents are making hectic efforts to replace the petitioners by another set of ad-hoc staff.

¶41

Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are before this Court feeling aggrieved by the impugned orders vide Annexures-G and H, wherein petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are relieved and in their place, respondent Nos.7 and 8 are appointed on temporary basis.

¶42

In identical cases in batch of writ petitions bearing W.P.No.7047/2023 and connected matters, this Court taking

¶43

¶44

note of the statement made by the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 that the guest teachers and non-teaching staff are paid equal pay has disposed of the writ petitions. Mandamus is issued to the respondents not to replace the present serving guest teachers by another set of ad-hoc staff unless the vacant sanctioned posts are filled through proper recruitment process. This Court in batch of petitions at paras 13 to 15 has held as under:

¶45

“13. The insistence on regular appointments of teachers/lecturers aligns with the broader objectives of institutional stability, academic continuity, and the welfare of the teaching staff. The Supreme Court's stance against replacing temporary employees with other temporary employees underscores the importance of transitioning towards a more stable and permanent workforce. Moreover, the fulfillment of approximately 2353 vacant posts represents a significant step in addressing the long-standing issue of understaffing, and it would be incongruous to fill these positions with temporary appointments while qualified and experienced temporary lecturers are available for regularization. The respondents, given the substantial number of vacancies, should prioritize the regularization of the existing

¶46

¶47

temporary/ad-hoc/guest lecturers or teachers. This approach not only adheres to established legal principles but also serves the institutional interest by fostering stability, academic continuity, and the well-being of the teaching staff.

¶48

14. In light of these considerations, it is imperative for the respondents to recognize the tenure and contributions of the petitioners and refrain from arbitrary termination or replacement practices. Failure to do so would not only violate the legitimate rights of the petitioners but also undermine the principles of equity and justice that form the bedrock of our legal system.

¶49

15. The records reveal that though there are 8831 sanctioned posts of teachers, only 3613 are appointed as permanent teachers and vide Recruitment Notification, 2859 teachers are selected by the Selection Authority (KPSC). Therefore, there are still substantial posts vacant. If sanctioned posts are vacant and against the sanctioned posts, guest Teachers/Lecturers who are serving cannot be disturbed and the respondent-KREIS is bound to continue the services of those guest Teachers/Lecturers who are rendering the services against sanctioned posts till those vacant posts are filled by appropriate recruitment process.”

¶50

¶51

In the light of observations made supra, the

¶52

respondents cannot terminate the services of the petitioners on the ground that their status is on contract based employment. The respondents shall not terminate the services of the petitioners at the expiration of contract term. The petitioner Nos.3 to 6 shall not be relieved till the sanctioned vacant posts are filled by following recruitment process in accordance with law. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 could not have been replaced on ad-hoc basis. However, now since respondent Nos.7 and 8 are posted to the place of petitioner Nos.1 and 2, the respondents shall accommodate petitioner Nos.1 and 2 in any distant residential school where post is found to be vacant. It is stated across Bar that there are still substantial posts vacant and therefore, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 who were appointed on ad-hoc basis and have been serving the respondent-Institution shall be accommodated in any institution where vacancies exist.

¶53

With these observations, I pass the following:

¶54

¶55

ORDER

¶56

(i) The writ petition is allowed in part;

¶57

(ii) The respondents are hereby directed to continue the services of petitioner Nos.3 to 6 as Teachers till regular recruitment is conducted in accordance with the Karnataka Residential Educational Institutions Society (Cadre & Recruitment) (Amendment) Regulations, 2021;

¶58

(iii) The respondents shall accommodate petitioner Nos.1 and 2 in any distant residential school where post is found to be vacant;

¶59

(iv) The pending interlocutory application, if any, does not survive for consideration and stands disposed of accordingly.

¶60

Sd/JUDGE

¶61

Sri. Manjunatha Prasad N.S v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Manjunatha Prasad N.S 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. C.R. Manjunath Vs the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board

Sri Jagadish M Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Smt. Shwetha Kiran Vs State of Karnataka

Kum Pallavi R S Vs the Secretary

Sri. Girish. C. N. Vs the Principal Secretary

Sri. Sudheer P Banare Vs the State of Karnataka