Allowed

Smt Kavitha Kumari K v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Feb 2024WP/3189/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by teaching staff against the Karnataka Residential Educational Institutions Society. The court directed the respondents not to terminate or replace the petitioners' services against sanctioned vacancies while those posts remain unfilled through proper recruitment.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition allowed in part; respondents directed not to relieve petitioners rendering services in respondent No.2 Society against vacant sanctioned posts subject to filling such posts through p

Smt Kavitha Kumari K Vs the State of… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:7927 WP No. 3189 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 3189 OF 2024 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT KAVITHA KUMARI K W/O PRASHANTH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS WORKING AS SOCIAL SCIENCE TEACHER, MORARJI DESAI RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL (ST), HUNSE DODDI, ANKANAHALLI POST, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562159

¶8

MAHESH Y.S. S/O SIDDANAIKA Y.H. AGED MAJOR WORKING AS KANNDA TEACHER, MORARJI DESAI RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL, KAMANAHALLI, GUNDLUPETE TALUK CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT-571129.

¶9

Digitally signed by ALBHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

JYOTILAXMI HASROOR D/O RACHANNA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT HINDI TEACHER, KITTU RANI CHENNAMMA RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL, GUNDUGURTHI VILLAGE, CHITTAPURA TALUK, KALABURGI DISTRICT -585223

¶11

RANJITHA D/O RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS

¶12

¶13

NC: 2024:KHC:7927 WP No. 3189 of 2024

¶14

WORKING AS SCIENCE TEACHER, KITTUR RANI CHENNAMMA RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL, JYOTHIGOWDANAPURA,

¶15

CHAMRAJANAPURA DISTRICT-571117

¶16

ANITHA KUMARA S/O SIDDARAJU AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS WORKING AS MATHEMATICS TEACHER, KITTUR RANI CHENNAMMA RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL, JYOTHIGOWDANAPURA,

¶17

CHAMRAJANAGAR DISTRICT-571117

¶18

RAVI H. S/O HANUMANTHAIAH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS WORKING AS KANNADA TEACHER, D.R. B.R. AMBEDKAR GIRLS RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL, HARADANAHALLI,

¶19

CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT-571127

¶20

KUMARA P S/O PUTTANANJAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS WORKING AS FDA, MORARJI DESAI RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL, MALLAIAHNAPURA, CHAMARAJAPURA DISTRICT-571313

¶21

PAVITHRA K.S. AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS W/O JAIKUMAR K.S. WORKING AS FDA KITTUR RANI CHENNAMMA RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL, HARALAHALLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA-571419

¶22

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:7927 WP No. 3189 of 2024

¶23

RUKMINI

¶24

D/O LATE NANJUNDA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS WOKRING AS STAFF NURSE, MORARJI DESAI RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL (192 ST), MALLAIAHNAPURA,

¶25

CHAMARAJNAGAR DISTRICT-571313

¶26

…PETITIONERS

¶27

(BY SMT. SHILPA RANI, ADVOCATE)

¶28

AND:

¶29

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001

¶30

THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS SOCIETY NO.8, M.S. B-1, 6 AND 7^TH FLOOR, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU-560052

¶31

…RESPONDENTS

¶32

(BY SRI.B.RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R1;

¶33

SRI.NAGAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶34

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE PETITIONERS REPRESENTATIONS DTD 14.07.2023 AND 02.01.2024, 09.01.2024 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-D AND E, E1 TO E3 RESPECTIVELY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:7927 WP No. 3189 of 2024

¶37

ORDER

¶38

The petitioner who are teaching and non-teaching staff serving at respondent No.2–residential society have filed the captioned petition seeking following reliefs:

¶39

“(a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction to the respondents to consider the petitioners who have concern in this writ petition representations dated 14.07.2023, 13.02.2023, 02.01.2024 and 09.01.2024 produced as Annexure-D & E, E1 to E4 series respectively, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶40

(b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners and to regularize the services of the petitioners as against the sanctioned posts as per the regulations & absorption rules framed, G.O.No.SakaE 42 MoDeSha 2006 Bengaluru dated 07.05.2011 produced as Annexure-F and on par with that of others.

¶41

(c)Direct the respondents to pay full salary attached to the post in terms of Article 39D of the Constitution of India.

¶42

(d) Issue any other Writ, order or direction and such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶43

2. In identical cases in batch of writ petitions

¶44

bearing W.P.No.7047/2023 and connected matters, this Court taking note of the statement made by the learned

¶45

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:7927 WP No. 3189 of 2024

¶46

counsel appearing for respondent No.2 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:

¶47

“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 temporary/ad-

¶48

¶49

NC: 2024:KHC:7927 WP No. 3189 of 2024

¶50

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.

¶51

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.

¶52

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.”

¶53

¶54

NC: 2024:KHC:7927 WP No. 3189 of 2024

¶55

In the light of observations made supra, the respondents cannot terminate the services of the

¶56

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 unless the sanctioned posts are filled through proper recruitment process.

¶57

With these observations, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

¶58

ORDER

¶59

(i) The writ petition is allowed in part;

¶60

(ii) The respondents are hereby directed not to relieve the petitioners if they are still rendering their service in the respondent No.2Society against the vacancies subject to filling up of those vacant posts through proper recruitment process.

¶61

(iii) The pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for

¶62

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:7927 WP No. 3189 of 2024

¶63

consideration and stand disposed accordingly.

¶64

¶65

Sd/- JUDGE

¶66

ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

Smt Kavitha Kumari K v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Kavitha Kumari K 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. T. Anjaneya Vs the Commissioner

Smt M S Ramya Vs State of Karnataka

Sri K L Manjunath Vs the Chief Commissioner

Sri. N C Sanjeevan Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Narasu Kalantere Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri K L Manjunath Vs Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike