A physical education teacher in a private aided school sought parity of pay with government employees relying on a Division Bench judgment striking down Rule 3(b). The court held that a pending Supreme Court stay suspends implementation without creating new rights, and dismissed the writ petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.34140 OF 2016 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI.VEERABHADRAPPA S/O SRI.SOMAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER GNANABHARATHI VIDYA MANDIRA HIGH SCHOOL CHANDAVALLI CROSS HOLALKERE ROAD CHITRADURGA C/O LATE SIDDAPPA MASTER C.D.SIDDESHWARA POINT IN FRONT OF HOUSE OF V.G.SHETTY HOLALKERE ROAD – 577 501 CHITRADURGA
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI.PARTHASARATHI M.S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.V.SHIVA REDDY, AGA FOR R.1 TO R.4;
SRI.SUDHARSAN SURESH, ADVOCATE FOR R.5 AND R.6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
MODIFY THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 IN REVISION PETITION NO.29 OF 2012 ORDER DATED 23.03.2015 AT ANNEXURE-J AND FURTHER DIRECTIONS THE RESPONDENTS MANAGEMENT AND THE INSTITUTIONS TO PAY THE PETITIONER SALARY ON PAR WITH CORRESPONDING GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 14.03.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner in the captioned writ petition has assailed order dated 23.03.2015 passed by respondent No.2 in Revision Petition No.29/2012 thereby declining any direction to respondents – Management to pay petitioner’s salary on par with their counterparts in Government Educational Institutions.
placing reliance on the interim order granted by the Hon’ble Apex Court, wherein the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.27432/1995, wherein Rule 3(b) of the Karnataka Educational
Institutions (Certain Terms and Conditions of Service of Employees in Private Unaided Primary and Secondary and Pre-University Educational Institutions) Rules, 2005 is struck down and the Rule is declared to be contrary to the law declared by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of TMA
PAI FOUNDATION AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF
KARNATAKA AND OTHERS1 .
1 (2002) 8 SCC 481
declared unconstitutional by a Competent Court.
Therefore, striking down of Rule 3(b) stands unaffected by the stay order issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court.
to pass the following;
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is dismissed.
(ii) Pending applications, if any, are
also dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE
NBM
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a petitioner can claim salary parity with government employees based on a Division Bench judgment striking down Rule 3(b), despite a pending Supreme Court stay on that judgment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
TMA Pai Foundation and Others vs. State of Karnataka and OthersRelied on¶2
(2002) 8 SCC 481 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri. Veerabharappa S/o Sri. Somappa
The State of Karnataka represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Primary and Secondary Education
The Commissioner for Public Instructions
The Director of Public Instructions
The Deputy Director of Public Instructions
The Secretary, Gnanabharathi Vidya Mandira High School
Sachin Shankar Magadum
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
