Partly allowed

Mr K M Lingaswamy v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Mar 2024WP/6671/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A contract social science teacher sought continued service and regularization. Following the court's earlier batch decision, the court held the petitioner cannot be terminated or replaced until sanctioned vacant posts are filled through proper recruitment, and allowed the petition in part.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner not to be relieved from service against vacancy until the post is filled by proper recruitment.

Mr K M Lingaswamy Vs State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:10949 WP No. 6671 of 2024

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 6671 OF 2024 (S-REG)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. K.M. LINGASWAMY, S/O MANTYAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT KYATHANAHALLI VILLAGE, DODDABUHALLI POST, B.G. PURA HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 463. PRESENTLY WORKING AS SOCIAL SCIENCE TEACHER, ATAL BIHARI VAJAPAYEE RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL, BAGAMANDALA, MADIKERI TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 247.

¶9

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

(BY SRI. RAJESHA SHETTIGARA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY/ UNDER SECRETARY GRADE-I,

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:10949 WP No. 6671 of 2024

¶17

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶18

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY, UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶19

THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS SOCIETY, AN ORGANISATION OF SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶20

THE SECRETARY, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶21

THE SECRETARY, KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PARK HOUSE ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶22

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, KODAGU DISTRICT, KODAGU - 571 201.

¶23

THE PRINCIPAL, ATAL BIHARI VAJAPAYEE RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL, BAGAMANDALA,

¶24

¶25

NC: 2024:KHC:10949 WP No. 6671 of 2024

¶26

MADIKERI TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 201.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 AND R5; SRI. NAGAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R4 AND R8)

¶29

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONTINUE THE SERVICE OF THE PETITIONER AS SOCIAL SCIENCE TEACHER TILL THE CASE OF PETITIONER IS CONSIDERED FOR REGULARIZATION AND ETC.

¶30

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

¶31

ORDER

¶32

The petitioner, who is teaching staff serving at respondent No.4–residential society have filed the

¶33

captioned petition seeking following reliefs:

¶34

“(a) Issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to continue the service of the petitioner as Social Science Teacher till the case of petitioner is considered for regularization.

¶35

(b) Issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner as appointment of the petitioner is valid appointment.

¶36

(c) Issue writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to extend the benefit of service weightage and to relaxation of age or to regularizes

¶37

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:10949 WP No. 6671 of 2024

¶38

their service of job to the petitioner appointed on contract basis in the interest of justice.

¶39

(d) Issue any other Writ or direction in the nature of writ which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶40

In identical cases in batch of writ petitions

¶41

bearing W.P.No.7047/2023 and connected matters, this Court taking 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:

¶42

“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

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC:10949 WP No. 6671 of 2024

¶45

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/adhoc/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.

¶46

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.

¶47

15. The records reveal that though there are 8831 sanctioned posts of teachers, only 3613 are appointed as permanent teachers and vide

¶48

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:10949 WP No. 6671 of 2024

¶49

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

In the light of observations made supra, the respondents cannot terminate the service of the petitioner on the ground that his status is on contract based employment. The respondents shall not terminate the service of the petitioner at the expiration of contract term unless the sanctioned posts are filled through proper recruitment process.

¶51

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

¶52

ORDER

¶53

(i) The writ petition is allowed in part;

¶54

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:10949 WP No. 6671 of 2024

¶55

(ii) The respondents are hereby directed not to relieve the petitioner if he is still rendering his service in respondent No.4Society against the vacancy subject to filling up of that vacant post through proper recruitment process.

¶56

(iii) The pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and stand disposed of accordingly.

¶57

Sd/JUDGE

¶58

HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20 CT:SNN

Mr K M Lingaswamy v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr K M Lingaswamy v. 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 Veerabhadrappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Kaladurgaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Tamil Selvi Vs Canara Bank

Sri Sreeramu v Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Basavaraju B C Vs Rajya Vokkaligara Sangha

Dr Banashankari J L Vs State of Karnataka