Disposed

Sri. Puttaswamy v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Sept 2024WP/28495/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A school assistant master whose termination was set aside by the Educational Appellate Tribunal but who received no reinstatement relief, and was later taken back only temporarily, sought review of earlier orders. The Court held the temporary re-employment amounted to reinstatement and directed the management to pay him Rs.10,00,000 as lumpsum compensation; his challenge to a replacement teacher's

What did the court decide?

Management directed to pay Rs.10,00,000 lumpsum compensation to the teacher towards lost wages; prayer to review earlier orders rejected; W.P.No.57103/2014 dismissed.

Sri. Puttaswamy Vs the State of Karnataka — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:38911 WP No. 28495 of 2014 C/W WP No. 10811 of 2012 WP No. 57103 of 2014

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 28495 OF 2014 (S-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 10811 OF 2012 (S-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 57103 OF 2014 (S-RES)

¶7

IN WP NO.28495/2014:

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. PUTTASWAMY S/O SRI GURUMALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS ASSISTANT MASTER, SRI GURUMALLESWARA SARVAJANIKA HIGH SCHOOL, BENAKANAHALLY, T. NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT. RESIDING AT NAVAGYATHANAHALLY, HORALAHALLI POST, T. NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT.

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

AND:

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001.

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER FOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS NEW PUBLIC OFFICES, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:38911 WP No. 28495 of 2014 C/W WP No. 10811 of 2012 WP No. 57103 of 2014

¶17

THE DIRECTOR FOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS NEW PUBLIC OFFICES, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.

¶18

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS MYSORE DISTRICT, MYSORE.

¶19

THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER T. NARASIPURA TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT.

¶20

GRAMA VIDHYODHAYA SANGHA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY T. NARASIPURA, T. NARASIPURA TALUM, MYSORE DISTRICT-571038. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY

¶21

SRI. NANDEESH D.S. S/O D.S. SADASHIVAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS ASSISTANT ENGLISH TEACHER SRI GURUMALLESWARA PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOL, BENAKANAHALLI, T. NARASIPURA TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT-571038

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. GOPALAKRISHNA SOODI, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 5;

¶24

SRI. R.S. RAVI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. NARENDRA D.V. GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.6; SRI. D.T. NANJESH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.7)

¶25

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO REVIEW AND CONSIDER THE ORDER DATED 12.02.2008 PASSED ON W.P. NO.22560/2005 [S-DIS] VIDE ANNEXURE-Q AND ETC.

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:38911 WP No. 28495 of 2014 C/W WP No. 10811 of 2012 WP No. 57103 of 2014

¶27

IN WP NO. 10811/2012

¶28

BETWEEN:

¶29

THE SECRETARY GRAMA VIDYODAYA SANGHA, T. NARASIPUR, MYSORE DIST.

¶30

THE HEAD MASTER SRI GURU MALLESWARA SARVAJANIKA HIGH SCHOOL BENAKANAHALLY,

¶31

T. NARASIPUR TALUK, MYSORE DIST.

¶32

...PETITIONERS

¶33

(BY SRI. R.S.RAVI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. NARENDRA D.V. GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶34

AND:

¶35

PUTTASWAMY S/O GURUMALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NARAKYATHANAHALLY, T. NARASIPUR TALUK.

¶36

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION (SECONDARY) AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶37

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, MYSORE DISTRICT, MYSORE.

¶38

THE BLOCK EDUCATIONAL OFFICER T. NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT.

¶39

...RESPONDENTS

¶40

(BY SRI. M.P.SRIKANTH, ADVOCATE FO RESPONDENT NO.1;

¶41

SRI. GOPALAKRISHNA SOODI, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 4)

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC:38911 WP No. 28495 of 2014 C/W WP No. 10811 of 2012 WP No. 57103 of 2014

¶43

¶44

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 18.10.2011, MADE IN APPEAL NO.8/2010, PASSED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-E.

¶45

IN WP NO. 57103/2014:

¶46

BETWEEN:

¶47

SRI. PUTTASWAMY S/O. SRI. GURUMALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, ASSISTANT MASTER, SRI GURUMALLESWARA SARVAJANIKA HIGH SCHOOL, BENAKANAHALLY, T.NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT, PIN:571038. RESIDING AT NAVAGYATHANAHALLY, HORALAHALLI POST, T. NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT PIN:571038.

¶48

...PETITIONER

¶49

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

¶50

AND:

¶51

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, M.S.BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001.

¶52

THE COMMISSIONER FOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, NEW PUBLIC OFFICES, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.

¶53

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCIONS, SECONDARY EDUCATION, NEW PUBLIC OFFICES,

¶54

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:38911 WP No. 28495 of 2014 C/W WP No. 10811 of 2012 WP No. 57103 of 2014

¶55

NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.

¶56

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, MYSORE DISTRICT, MYSORE. PIN:571038.

¶57

THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER T. NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT PIN:571038.

¶58

GRAMA VIDHYODHAYA SANGHA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, T. NARASIPURA, T. NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT-571038 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY

¶59

SRI. NANDEESH D.S. S/O D.S.SADASHIVAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, ASSISTANT ENGLISH TEACHER, SRI GURUMALLESWARA PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOL, BENAKANAHALLI, T. NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT-571038.

¶60

...RESPONDENTS

¶61

(BY SRI. GOPALAKRISHNA SOODI, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 5;

¶62

SRI. R.S.RAVI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. NARENDRA D.V. GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.6;

¶63

SRI. D.T.NANJESH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.7)

¶64

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO.ED.160.SOH.2012 DATED 02.09.2014, PASSED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-AH.

¶65

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶66

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:38911 WP No. 28495 of 2014 C/W WP No. 10811 of 2012 WP No. 57103 of 2014

¶67

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶68

ORAL ORDER

¶69

The petitioners in W.P No.10811/2012 have sought for appropriate writ to quash the order dated 18.10.2011, passed by respondent No.2 in Appeal No.8/2010.

¶70

In W.P No.28495/2014 the petitioner has sought for an order to review the order dated 12.02.2008 passed in W.P No.22560/2005 and to set aside the order dated 28.05.2014 passed by respondent No.3 on Review Petition No.1/2012.

¶71

W.P No.57103/2014 is filed challenging the order

¶72

bearing No.ED.160.SOH.2012 dated 02.09.2014 passed by respondent No.1 appointing respondent No.7 as an assistant English teacher.

¶73

Since the facts involved in all these petitions are common, these petitions are disposed off by this common order. The petitioner in W.P Nos.28495/2014 and 57103/2014 shall henceforth be referred to as 'aggrieved teacher' and petitioner in W.P No.10811/2012 shall henceforth be referred to as 'Management'.

¶74

¶75

NC: 2024:KHC:38911 WP No. 28495 of 2014 C/W WP No. 10811 of 2012 WP No. 57103 of 2014

¶76

(i) The aggrieved teacher was appointed on 18.09.1991 as an assistant master at Sri Gurumalleswara Sarvajanika High School (henceforth referred to as 'School'). The petitioner reported to duty on 25.09.1991. The management resolved to handover the school to the management of Grama Vidyodaya Education Society. The respondent No.3 vide order dated 29.12.1994 granted permission for transfer of management, subject to the condition that there should be no objection from any person and salary protection and service conditions of the employees should be assured. It is contended that this school was admitted for grant as per the Government order dated 27.03.1998.

¶77

(ii) In the meanwhile, the petitioner was relieved from service as per the memo dated 10.04.1995, which was challenged by him before the Educational Appellate Tribunal (henceforth referred to as 'the Tribunal') in EAT No.8/1995. The Tribunal allowed the appeal in terms of the order dated 03.04.2001, in terms of which, it held that aggrieved teacher was appointed as an assistant teacher in the year 1991-92 and had served the institution till 1994-95. It further held that

¶78

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:38911 WP No. 28495 of 2014 C/W WP No. 10811 of 2012 WP No. 57103 of 2014

¶79

since the aggrieved teacher was a permanent employee, the management could not have relieved him without conducting an enquiry as mandated under law. The appeal was allowed, but the Tribunal refused to grant further relief of reinstatement of the aggrieved teacher and consequential benefits on the ground that he did not claim the said reliefs.

¶80

(iii) After the disposal of EAT No.8/1995, the aggrieved teacher purportedly submitted a representation dated 21.12.2001, requesting the management to restore his service. He contends that, he was forced to mention in the representation dated 21.12.2001, that he may be permitted to work on temporary basis. The management therefore, accepted the service of the petitioner on temporary basis based on his representation.

¶81

(iv) The aggrieved teacher alleged that this amounted to a reduction in rank viz., from a permanent employee to a temporary employee and challenged the action of management before the Education Appellate Tribunal in EAT No.12/2002. The Tribunal in terms of the order dated 21.02.2005, dismissed the appeal but reserved liberty to the aggrieved teacher to take

¶82

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:38911 WP No. 28495 of 2014 C/W WP No. 10811 of 2012 WP No. 57103 of 2014

¶83

steps to enforce any right flowing from the order passed in EAT No.8/1995.

¶84

(v) The order in EAT No.12/2002 was then questioned before this Court in W.P No.22560/2005. This Court in terms of the order dated 12.12.2008, dismissed the writ petition and held as follows:

¶85

" XXXX

¶86

4. The Tribunal vide judgment dated 03.04.2001 in EAT No.8/1995 though declared the removal of petitioner from service on 10.04.1995 as illegal to grant the relief of reinstatement and consequential benefits to the petitioner. This judgment of the Tribunal not questioned by the petitioner and as such the same had become final. Subsequent to the judgment in EAT No.8/1995 the petitioner contends that he has issued a lawyer's notice to the respondents calling upon them to reinstate him and to pay the consequential benefits. On the other hand the respondents denies the receipt of such lawyer's notice from the petitioner. Be that as it may. The petitioner admits that subsequent to judgment in EAT No.8/19945 he gave a letter requesting the respondents to appoint him on temporary basis. Accordingly the petitioner had been appointed as a temporary teacher with effect

¶87

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:38911 WP No. 28495 of 2014 C/W WP No. 10811 of 2012 WP No. 57103 of 2014

¶88

from 31.12.2001. Thus the petitioner had accepted the judgment in EAT No.8/1995. Under the circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled fo a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate him and to pay him the consequential benefits arising out of judgment in EAT No.8/1995.

¶89

5. The prayer in EAT No.12/2002 is to direct the respondents to appoint as permanent teacher and to pay the salaries applicable to the permanent post. The tribunal in its judgment in EAT No.12/2002 noticed the fact that the very appointment of petitioner on 31.12.2001 was on temporary basis and on consolidated payment. Further it is noticed that during the pendency of EAT No.12/2002 petitioner voluntarily left the services of respondent. Under the circumstances, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal in EAT No.12/2002 is in accordance with law. I find no justifiable ground to interfere with the same. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is hereby rejected with no order as to costs."

¶90

[Emphasis supplied]

¶91

(vi) After the aggrieved teacher was taken back to duty on temporary basis on 21.12.2001, the management relieved him from service on 31.03.2010. The teacher therefore challenged the said order in an appeal filed under Section 130

¶92

11 -

¶93

NC: 2024:KHC:38911 WP No. 28495 of 2014 C/W WP No. 10811 of 2012 WP No. 57103 of 2014

¶94

of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 (for short, 'the Act, 1983') in Appeal No.8/2010. The said appeal was allowed in part. The memo dated 31.03.2010 issued by the management relieving the services of the petitioner was set-aside and the management was directed to maintain status-quo regarding the services of the aggrieved teacher. It also directed salary to be paid to petitioner from 13.02.2008 as per the order bearing No.G.O.ED 104 SEP 2005 dated 12.01.2006.

¶95

(vii) The management challenged the order passed by the appellate authority in Appeal No.8/2010 before this Court in W.P No.10811/2012 . In the meanwhile, the aggrieved teacher filed Review Petition No.1/2012 to review the order dated 18.10.2011 passed in Appeal No.8/2010. On the submission made by the aggrieved teacher in W.P No.10811/2012 that the order passed in Appeal No.8/2010 was the subject matter of review petition, this Court passed an order dated 08.10.2013 which reads as follows:

¶96

"Government Advocate takes notice for respondents 2 to 4.

¶97

The learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that the order impugned in the Writ Petition

¶98

12 -

¶99

NC: 2024:KHC:38911 WP No. 28495 of 2014 C/W WP No. 10811 of 2012 WP No. 57103 of 2014

¶100

is the subject matter of the Review Petition filed by him. The Review Petition has been filed seeking to review the order impugned in this Writ Petition. He therefore pleads that until the Review Petition is disposed off, the consideration of this Writ Petition be deferred.

¶101

An interim order as prayed for was granted on 31.05.2012. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the said order requires to be modified, only to enable the 2nd respondent to consider the Review Petition. Under these circumstances, the interim order granted on 31.05.2012 is modified. The respondents are directed not to execute the order dated 18.10.2011 against the petitioner until further orders of this Court.

¶102

In view of the submission made by the learned Counsel for respondent No.1, the respondent No.2 is directed to hear and dispose off the Review Petition within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶103

The Writ Petition to be considered after disposal of the Review Petition.

¶104

Issue rule nisi."

¶105

(viii) The said review petition was dismissed in terms of the order dated 28.05.2014. The petitioner is therefore, before

¶106

13 - NC: 2024:KHC:38911 WP No. 28495 of 2014 C/W WP No. 10811 of 2012 WP No. 57103 of 2014

¶107

this Court in W.P. No.28495/2014 seeking review of the order passed by this Court in W.P No.22560/2005 and to consequently set-aside the order passed by respondent No.3 in review petition No.1/2012.

¶108

During the pendency of these two writ petitions, the management had issued a recruitment notification inviting applications from suitable candidates for the post of assistant teacher, following which a person named Sri Nandish (respondent No.7) was appointed as assistant teacher in English in terms of the government order dated 05.04.2010 and his appointment was approved by the State Government on 02.09.2014. The aggrieved teacher has challenged the approval of the appointment of respondent No.7 in W.P. No.57103/2014 .

¶109

The grievance of the aggrieved teacher is that he being a permanent employee of the management, he could not have been removed from service as found by the Education Appellate Tribunal in EAT No.8/1995. He contended that the Tribunal after allowing the appeal, must have granted the relief of reinstatement into service with consequential benefits. He

¶110

14 -

¶111

NC: 2024:KHC:38911 WP No. 28495 of 2014 C/W WP No. 10811 of 2012 WP No. 57103 of 2014

¶112

contends that in view of his piquant financial condition, he was forced to submit a representation to the management to accept back him into service on temporary basis. Consequently, the management accepted his service back on temporary basis and was drafted for the general elections of 2009 as polling officer on 13.04.2009 and 25.04.2009. His service was continued till 31.03.2010. It is contended that the Tribunal in EAT No.8/1995 committed an error in not granting the relief of reinstatement by holding that the aggrieved teacher had not claimed those reliefs as that was merely consequential. He contended that this gave a handle to the management to compel the aggrieved teacher to continue him on temporary basis. He contends that this order of the Educational Appellate Tribunal in EAT No.8/1995, was neither questioned by him nor by the management and therefore, it became final. It was also contended that after the management took the services of the petitioner on temporary basis, they had unceremoniously removed him, which compelled him to file an appropriate appeal before appellate authority under the provisions of the Act, 1983 who took notice of the order passed in EAT No.8/1995 and held that the aggrieved teacher was not entitled

¶113

15 - NC: 2024:KHC:38911 WP No. 28495 of 2014 C/W WP No. 10811 of 2012 WP No. 57103 of 2014

¶114

for reinstatement and consequential benefits, as his subsequent appointment was on temporary basis. Nonetheless, the appellate authority allowed the appeal and set aside the memo dated 31.03.2010, by which the service of the aggrieved teacher was discontinued.

¶115

The learned counsel for the aggrieved teacher contends that in EAT No.8/1995, the Tribunal held that the aggrieved teacher could not have been removed without following due process of law and without conducting an enquiry. He contends that when once the order relieving the services of the petitioner was set aside in EAT 8/1995, it followed without saying that the petitioner was entitled for reinstatement and consequential reliefs. He contends that the Tribunal had inherent powers to grant the said reliefs. In support of his contention, he has relied on a judgment of this Court in M/s Pierce Leslie India Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax, Karnataka, Bangalore [1988 (2) KLJ 147]. He submits that after the order passed in EAT No.8/1995, the petitioner caused a notice to the management claiming reinstatement and backwages from 10.04.1995 with all consequential benefits. He contends that the management

¶116

16 - NC: 2024:KHC:38911 WP No. 28495 of 2014 C/W WP No. 10811 of 2012 WP No. 57103 of 2014

¶117

instead of reinstating the services of the petitioner, insisted that the petitioner should join back on temporary basis. Therefore, the petitioner was compelled to submit a representation dated 21.12.2001 stating that he could be taken back to service on temporary basis. He submits that the petitioner was thereafter reinstated into service and therefore, such reinstatement should be treated as compliance of the order passed in EAT No.8/1995. Therefore, he contends that removal of the petitioner without following due process of law, was illegal and consequently the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal and the Revision Court warrants interference. He contends that this Court in W.P.No.22560/2005 did not notice the fact that the order passed in EAT No.8/1995 setting aside the order relieving the services of the petitioner meant that the petitioner was also entitled for reinstatement of service with consequential benefits. In support of this contention, he has relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Anantdeep Singh Vs. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh and Anr. Civil Appeal

¶118

No.3082/2022 where it was held:

¶119

17 - NC: 2024:KHC:38911 WP No. 28495 of 2014 C/W WP No. 10811 of 2012 WP No. 57103 of 2014

¶120

"21. Once the termination order is set aside and judgment of the High Court dismissing the writ petition challenging the said termination order has also been set aside, the natural consequence is that the employee should be taken back in service and thereafter proceeded with as per the directions. Once the termination order is set aside then the employee is deemed to be in service."

¶121

He contends that the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.22560/2005 therefore deserves to be reviewed having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. In order to overcome the delay in seeking review, the learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Jammu and Kashmir Vs.

¶122

R.K.Zalpuri and others [(2015) 15 SCC 602].

¶123

Per contra, the learned Senior counsel representing the management submitted that the tribunal in EAT No.8/1995 had proceeded on the assumption that Rule 9 of the Karnataka Private Educational Institutions Rules, 1978 is applicable to the management, while, what was applicable to the employees of an aided institution was the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Recruitment and Terms and Conditions of Service of

¶124

18 - NC: 2024:KHC:38911 WP No. 28495 of 2014 C/W WP No. 10811 of 2012 WP No. 57103 of 2014

¶125

Employees in Private Aided Primary And Secondary Educational Institutions) Rules, 1999. He contends that the tribunal though held that the aggrieved teacher could not have been relieved from the service, without following due process of law, did not grant the benefit of reinstatement and consequential benefits as the aggrieved teacher was appointed on temporary basis on consolidated pay. He submitted that this order of the tribunal became final, as the aggrieved teacher did not challenge the same and he also did not enforce it in the manner known to law. He contends that the petitioner then was taken back into service as a temporary employee based on his request and there was no compulsion from the management to accept his services on temporary basis. He contends that the teacher after reporting to service filed EAT No.12/2002 contending that he was continued as a temporary teacher though he was permanently appointed. He contends that the tribunal after verifying its earlier order passed in EAT No.8/1995, held "the finding of this Court in EAT No.8/1995 clearly indicates that the appellant was not a temporary teacher and his services could not be terminated without holding an enquiry as required by law ".

¶126

19 - NC: 2024:KHC:38911 WP No. 28495 of 2014 C/W WP No. 10811 of 2012 WP No. 57103 of 2014

¶127

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order relieving the aggrieved teacher from service and the said order has not been challenged by the management before any superior Courts. He contended that the tribunal noticed that after the order passed in EAT No.8/1995, the services of the petitioner was taken on temporary basis and hence, dismissed the appeal in terms of the order dated 21.02.2005. He contends that the petitioner had challenged the order passed in EAT No.12/2002 before this Court in W.P.No.22560/2005 and this Court too dismissed the writ petition noticing the failure on the part of the petitioner to challenge the order passed in EAT No.8/1995. He therefore, contends that the petitioner cannot now claim the benefit of the order passed in EAT No.8/1995.

¶128

He contends that the aggrieved teacher was always an employee on temporary basis and he was therefore continued on temporary basis. He contends that the aggrieved teacher therefore is not entitled to now claim that as a result of the order dated 03.04.2001 passed by the Tribunal in E.A.T No.8/1995, he was entitled for reinstatement in service and backwages and consequential benefits.

¶129

20 - NC: 2024:KHC:38911 WP No. 28495 of 2014 C/W WP No. 10811 of 2012 WP No. 57103 of 2014

¶130

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the aggrieved teacher, the learned senior counsel for the respondent-Management. Learned Additional Government Advocate representing official respondents and Sri D.T. Nanjesh Gowda, learned counsel representing respondent No.7 in W.P No.28495/2014 and W.P. No.57103/2014.

¶131

The facts that can be gathered from concluded proceedings between the parties are that the aggrieved teacher was appointed by the management on 18.09.1991. The aggrieved teacher was unceremoniously removed by the management which was challenged by him before the Tribunal in E.A.T No.8/1995. The Tribunal in terms of the order dated 03.04.2001, held that "he had been appointed as Assistant Teacher in Arts for the year 1991-1992 and continued in the said capacity for three more subsequent years till 1994-95, as could be seen from the certificate issued by the Head Master on 06.07.1995. From these, it is clear that the appellant had not been appointed either for a period less than three months or as a part time employee so as to attract Rule 9, in which event, the management had all the right to terminate the service without assigning any reasons."

¶132

21 - NC: 2024:KHC:38911 WP No. 28495 of 2014 C/W WP No. 10811 of 2012 WP No. 57103 of 2014

¶133

It further held that " from the material on record, it is seen that as stated earlier, no enquiry has been held against the appellant and no opportunity has been given to the appellant and the respondent management had passed orders impugned under the appeal. The way in which the order impugned has been passed particularly in view of the said statutory provisions, it is clear that the order impugned under the appeal is illegal and invalid and the same requires to be interfered to by this Tribunal."

¶134

However, in so far as the relief of reinstatement and for backwages, the tribunal held "that on careful perusal of the material on record, it is seen that the appellant has sought for allowing the appeal and for setting aside the order impugned. It is pertinent to see that the appellant has not specifically prayed for any other relief like reinstatement or for payment of back wages or any other incidental reliefs. But, the appellant has merely prayed for setting aside the order impugned and for allowing the appeal. It is pertinent to see that by well settled precedent law, it is clear that the Courts of law function in an adversary system of administration of justice strictly in

¶135

22 -

¶136

NC: 2024:KHC:38911 WP No. 28495 of 2014 C/W WP No. 10811 of 2012 WP No. 57103 of 2014

¶137

accordance with law and the Tribunal has been empowered to pass orders as contemplated under Section 10 of the Act, and in view of the prayer of the appellant, the Tribunal is of the opinion that it would not be proper to grant any other relief other than the one claimed by the appellant. Possibly if the appellant had been interested in reinstatement or for claim of backwages, the appellant could have come out with such a case. In the absence of the appellant coming out with such a case, in my opinion, it would not be proper for this Tribunal to go off the track and assume jurisdiction and grant any other relief has not been prayed for."

¶138

The tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the order terminating services of the petitioner. Later the petitioner submitted a representation dated 21.12.2001 to the management to accept back his services as per the order passed by the Education Appellate Tribunal in EAT No.8/1995. However, in the said representation, the petitioner had requested the management to permit him to continue as a teacher on temporary basis. Based on this representation, the management accepted back the services of the petitioner on temporary basis.

¶139

23 - NC: 2024:KHC:38911 WP No. 28495 of 2014 C/W WP No. 10811 of 2012 WP No. 57103 of 2014

¶140

The petitioner then filed an appeal under Section 94 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 contending that the management had reduced his appointment from a permanent teacher and had taken him back to work as a temporary teacher. The said appeal was dismissed in terms of the order dated 21.02.2005, whereby the Tribunal held that the petitioner had failed to claim the relief of reinstatement of service and other benefits in EAT No.8/1995. Further it held that the petitioner was taken on temporary basis and therefore was not entitled to claim any other relief. While doing so, the Appellate tribunal reserved liberty to the petitioner to take any steps that are available to him in the light of the order passed in EAT No.8/1995. The petitioner challenged the order dated 21.02.2005 before this Court in W.P.No.22560/2005 which too came to be dismissed in terms of the order dated 12.02.2008. This Court while disposing off the said writ petition held as follows:

¶141

"5. The prayer in EAT No.12/2002 is to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as permanent teacher and to pay the salaries applicable to the permanent post. The Tribunal in its judgment in EAT No.12/2002 noticed the fact

¶142

24 - NC: 2024:KHC:38911 WP No. 28495 of 2014 C/W WP No. 10811 of 2012 WP No. 57103 of 2014

¶143

that the very appointment of petitioner on 31.12.2001 was on temporary basis and on consolidated payment. Further it is noticed that during the pendency of EAT No.12/2002 petitioner voluntarily left the services of respondent. Under the circumstances, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal in EAT No.12/2002 is in accordance with law. I find no justifiable ground to interfere with the same. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is hereby rejected with no order as to costs."

¶144

The services of the petitioner was relieved by the

¶145

management which was challenged by the petitioner in a statutory appeal under Section 130 of the Karnataka Education Act in appeal No.8/2010. The said appeal was allowed in part whereby the memo dated 31.03.2010 issued by management relieving the services of the petitioner was set aside and the management was directed to maintain status-quo regarding the services of the appellant. This order was challenged by the management in W.P.No.10811/2012. During the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner sought review of the order passed in EAT No.8/2010 by filing a Review Petition No.1/2012 which too was dismissed in terms of the order dated

¶146

25 - NC: 2024:KHC:38911 WP No. 28495 of 2014 C/W WP No. 10811 of 2012 WP No. 57103 of 2014

¶147

28.05.2014. The petitioner/teacher has therefore filed W.P.No.28495/2014 to review the order dated 12.02.2008 passed by this Court in W.P.No.22560/2005 and to set aside the order dated 28.05.2014 passed in Review Petition No.1/2012. The petitioner was relieved from the duty and the management had taken steps to recruit another person to the post of teacher in Arts and the said appointment is challenged by the teacher in W.P.No.57103/2014.

¶148

This is one of the few cases where the aggrieved teacher and the Management have not pursued their respective grievance in the manner known to law. While the aggrieved teacher succeeded in E.A.T No.8/1995 to a certain extent, he did not challenge the order of the Tribunal dated 03.04.2001 in so far as it related to refusing to order his reinstatement and for consequential backwages and continuity in service. He also did not take steps to enforce the order passed by the Tribunal in E.A.T No.8/1995 to seek his reinstatement in service or backwages or consequential benefits.

¶149

Likewise, the Management did not challenge the order dated 03.04.2001 passed by the Tribunal in E.A.T

¶150

26 - NC: 2024:KHC:38911 WP No. 28495 of 2014 C/W WP No. 10811 of 2012 WP No. 57103 of 2014

¶151

No.8/1995 assailing the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the aggrieved Teacher could not have been removed without following the due process of law by relying upon the Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Rules, 1978 which were applicable to Private Institutions.

¶152

The aggrieved Teacher was again treated the same way by the Management as was done earlier, by accepting him back into service on temporary basis, which was the reason for filing E.A.T No.8/1995. He worked till 31.03.2010. The Management by a memo dated 31.03.2010, relieved the services of the aggrieved Teacher which was challenged before the Appellate Authority in Appeal No.8/2010. The appeal yielded no favourable result and Review Petition No.1/2012 filed there against also did not evoke any positive response.

¶153

The Tribunal in E.A.T No.12/2002 as well as the Appellate Authority in Appeal No.8/2010 and the Reviewing Authority in Review Petition No.1/2012 all proceeded on the findings recorded by the Tribunal in EAT No.8/1995 that the aggrieved Teacher did not claim the relief of reinstatement, backwages and consequential benefits and that his subsequent

¶154

27 - NC: 2024:KHC:38911 WP No. 28495 of 2014 C/W WP No. 10811 of 2012 WP No. 57103 of 2014

¶155

appointment was on temporary basis and therefore, no relief could be granted.

¶156

It is now well settled that the parties to a lis cannot be put to jeopardy due to a mistake of the Court and Courts should not hesitate to undo the wrong at any stage of the proceeding. When once the order dated 10.04.1995 passed by the Management relieving the services of the aggrieved Teacher was set aside by the Tribunal in EAT No.8/1995, as a logical consequence he was deemed to be in service. The reason for not granting the reliefs by the Tribunal was that the aggrieved Teacher did not claim them. It was not that there were any circumstances that militated against automatic reinstatement of the aggrieved Teacher. Having said that, it was incumbent upon the aggrieved Teacher to challenge the order dated 03.04.2001 passed in E.A.T No.8/1995 to obviate the consequences of the order. The Management too did not challenge the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the aggrieved Teacher was not appointed on temporary basis and therefore, before relieving him from service, must have conducted an enquiry in the manner known to law. The Tribunal is conferred with power under Section 96 of the Karnataka

¶157

28 - NC: 2024:KHC:38911 WP No. 28495 of 2014 C/W WP No. 10811 of 2012 WP No. 57103 of 2014

¶158

Education Act, 1983 to grant the aforesaid reliefs after the order relieving the aggrieved Teacher was set at naught. Therefore, the act on the part of the Management in taking the aggrieved Teacher back into service from 31.12.2001 for the academic year 2001-02 on temporary basis should be construed as an act of reinstatement into service. Since there is nothing on record to establish that the appointment of the aggrieved Teacher was approved by the State Government or that his appointment was admitted to salary grant and since he has not worked from the year 2010 and has since attained the age of superannuation, the only relief that can be granted to the aggrieved Teacher is, to compensate him in terms of money, taking into account his loss of opportunity etc.

¶159

Having regard to the fact that the aggrieved Teacher has slept over his rights and also having regard to the fact that the Management has not challenged the order dated 03.04.2001 passed by the Tribunal in E.A.T No.8/1995, the only relief that can be granted to the aggrieved Teacher in these proceedings, is to direct the Management to pay a lumpsum amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) towards the loss of wages of the petitioner from the date he

¶160

NC: 2024:KHC:38911 WP No. 28495 of 2014 C/W WP No. 10811 of 2012 WP No. 57103 of 2014

¶161

29 -

¶162

was relieved from service and till the date of his superannuation. Therefore, it is unnecessary to go into the question whether the order dated 12.02.2008 passed by this Court in W.P. No.22560/2005 and the order dated 28.05.2014 passed by respondent No.3 in W.P. No.28495/2014, in Review Petition No.1/2012 should be reviewed. In the same vein, since the Management did not challenge the order dated 03.04.2001 passed by the Tribunal in E.A.T No.8/1995, but reinstated the petitioner into service, which is construed by this Court in this writ petition as an act of reinstatement, restoring the status quo ante prior to 10.04.1995, no relief can be granted to the Management. Since the aggrieved Teacher has attained the age of superannuation, he is not entitled to challenge the order dated 02.09.2014 passed by the respondent No.1 - State concerning appointment or approval of appointment of respondent No.7 in W.P. No.57103/2014. Hence, the following:

¶163

ORDER

¶164

i. The writ petition in W.P. No.10811/2012 filed by the Management and the writ petition in W.P. No.28495/2014 filed by the aggrieved Teacher are disposed off directing the

¶165

30 - NC: 2024:KHC:38911 WP No. 28495 of 2014 C/W WP No. 10811 of 2012 WP No. 57103 of 2014

¶166

Management to pay a lumpsum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) to the aggrieved Teacher, who is the petitioner in W.P. No.28495/2014, towards the salary that he would have earned.

¶167

ii. The reliefs sought for in W.P. No.28495/2014 to review the order dated 12.02.2008 passed by this Court in W.P. No.22560/2005 and the order dated 28.05.2014 passed by the respondent No.3 in Review Petition No.1/2012 do not arise for consideration and the same are rejected.

¶168

iii. In so far as W.P. No.57103/2014 is concerned, since the petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation, he has no locus standi to question the approval of appointment of the respondent No.7 by the State in terms of the order dated 02.09.2014. Hence, W.P. No.57103/2014 is dismissed.

¶169

NC: 2024:KHC:38911 WP No. 28495 of 2014 C/W WP No. 10811 of 2012 WP No. 57103 of 2014

¶170

31 -

¶171

In view of disposal of these petitions, the pending interlocutory application/s in W.P.No.28495/2014 and W.P. No.10811/2012 do not survive for consideration and the same

stand disposed off.

Sd/(R. NATARAJ)

JUDGE

THM: para nos.1 TO 7 HJ: para nos.8 to 10, 13 to 17 SMA: para nos.11, 12 and 18 till end List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26

Sri. Puttaswamy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Puttaswamy 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

Devakumar. H. R. Vs State of Karnataka

Anjanappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Gurumalleshwara Maha Vidya Samsthe (R) Vs Sri M. Suresh

M C Sunanda Vs the State of Karnatkaa

C Dhanaraju Vs High Court of Karnataka

Sri v G Venkatesh Vs the District & Sessions Judge