Dismissed

Sri. Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Nov 2024WP/8908/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A civil servant displaced from the post of In-charge Principal challenged the Tribunal's order favouring a senior colleague. The court held the Circular of 10.10.2023 mandates seniority-based placement, rendering B.N.Dhotrad inapplicable, and dismissed the petition while setting aside the Tribunal's cost levy.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; Rs.5,000 cost imposed by Tribunal on petitioner set aside.

Sri. Chandrappa Vs State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:46445-DB WP No. 8908 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI WRIT PETITION NO. 8908 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. CHANDRAPPA, S/O NANJAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT ANANDA NAGARA, 5^TH MAIN, 2^ND CROSS, R.T.NAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560032, INCHARGE PRINCIPAL AND ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF ZOOLOGY, GOVERNMENT FIRST GRADE COLLEGE, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE -560064.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

Digitally signed by VEERENDRA KUMAR K M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

(BY SRI NAGENDRA NAIK, ADV. FOR SRI MUZAFFAR AHMED, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, K.G.S. M.S.BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560001.

¶16

COMMISSIONER FOR COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, SESHADRI ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:46445-DB WP No. 8908 of 2024

¶18

SMT. DR. GEETA N, W/O DR. PRASAD SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, PROFESSOR IN KANNADA, GOVERNMENT FIRST GRADE COLLEGE, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE-560064, R/AT NO.3, NUDI 1^st MAIN, MUNESHWARA LAYOUT, 4^TH BLOCK, DODDABOMMASANDRA, BANGALORE-560097.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT SARITHA KULKARNI, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2, SRI A NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04.03.2024 IN APPLICATION No.4904/2023 PASSED BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE, AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT)

¶23

A civil servant having suffered displacement from the

¶24

post of Principal, which he held on In-charge basis by

¶25

virtue of Service Tribunal's order dated 4.3.2024, is

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:46445-DB WP No. 8908 of 2024

¶27

grieving before the Writ Court. By the said order, private respondent’s Application No.4904/2023 having been favoured, the following relief has been accorded to her:

¶28

“Therefore, the applicant has made out a strong case for a direction to the second respondent to appoint the applicant as incharge Principal with immediate effect… The third respondent shall therefore, cease to function in the post of incharge Principal with immediate effect from the date of this order and hand over charge to the applicant forthwith…"

¶29

The Tribunal has also awarded a cost of Rs.5,000/- to the

¶30

private respondent payable by the petitioner herein.

¶31

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶32

vehemently argues that the impugned order is liable to be voided in as much as it runs counter to 50 years Service Jurisprudence. Seniority does not factor when an employee is placed in a higher post on Incharge/Independent charge basis vide B.N.Dhotrad vs. The Board of Directors/cum Appellate Authority¹ . The private respondent had given a letter evincing disinterest in the post of Principal. All these aspects having

¶33

1 ILR 2006 KAR 3163

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:46445-DB WP No. 8908 of 2024

¶36

not been duly considered, the Tribunal has committed a grave error warranting interference of this Court.

¶37

Learned AGA appearing for the official respondents and the learned counsel representing the private respondent resist the petition making submission in justification of the impugned order of the Tribunal and the reasons on which it has been structured. The private respondent places reliance on a Circular dated 10.10.2023 which accords seniority as a factor in the matter of placing of a government servant on In-charge/Independent charge basis, in the higher post. He also draws our attention to a similar letter issued by the petitioner on the very same day on which his client had issued. He adds that the decision of B.N.Dhotrad supra, would not come to the aid of petitioner.

¶38

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶39

and having perused the Petition Papers, we decline indulgence in the matter in as much as the Circular dated

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:46445-DB WP No. 8908 of 2024

¶41

10.10.2023 specifically stipulates that only a senior member of the teaching faculty shall be placed in the post of Principal. It further provides that if any junior is functioning as a Principal on In-charge basis, the same should be discontinued and in his place, a senior would be posted immediately. A copy of the said Circular is reproduced below:

¶42

PÁ¯ÉÃdÄ ²PÀët E¯ÁSÉ

¶43

¸ÀASÉå:r¹E:nDgïJ£ï:LJ£ï¹:72:2023:nrf: PÁ¯ÉÃdÄ ²PÀët DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀ PÀbÉÃj, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, ¢£ÁAPÀ:10-10-2023

¶44

¸ÀÄvÉÆÛÃ¯É

¶45

«µÀAiÀÄ: ¸ÀPÁðj ¥ÀæxÀªÀÄ zÀeÉð PÁ¯ÉÃdÄUÀ¼À°è ¥ÁA±ÀÄ¥Á®gÀ ¥Àæ¨sÁgÀ

¶46

ªÀ»¸ÀÄªÀ §UÉÎ.

¶47

¶48

¸ÀPÁðj ¥ÀæxÀªÀÄ zÀeÉð PÁ¯ÉÃdÄUÀ¼À°è ¥Àæ¨sÁgÀ ¥ÁæA±ÀÄ¥Á®gÁV PÀvÀðªÀå ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀ ¥ÁæzsÁå¥ÀPÀgÀÄ, ¸ÀºÀ/¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¥ÁæzsÁå¥ÀPÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¤ªÀÈwÛ, ªÀUÁðªÀuÉ, EvÁå¢ ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è ©qÀÄUÀqÉ ºÉÆAzÀÄªÁUÀ PÁ¯ÉÃf£À ¥ÁæA±ÀÄ¥Á®gÀ ¥Àæ¨sÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß EªÀgÀ £ÀAvÀgÀzÀ ¸ÉÃªÁ eÉÃµÀ×vÉAiÀÄ°è »jAiÀÄgÁzÀ ¥ÁæzsÁå¥ÀPÀgÀÄ, ¸ÀºÀ/¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¥ÁæzsÁå¥ÀPÀjUÉ ªÀ»¸À®Ä F PÀbÉÃj¬ÄAzÀ ¸ÀÆZÀ£ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ÃrzÀÝgÀÆ, ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀÆZÀ£ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Á°¸ÀzÉÃ QjAiÀÄjUÉ ¥ÁæA±ÀÄ¥Á®gÀ ¥Àæ¨sÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀ»¸ÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ PÁ¯ÉÃf£À°è DqÀ½vÁvÀäPÀ UÉÆAzÀ®UÀ¼ÀÄ GAmÁUÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß UÀªÀÄ¤¸À¯ÁVzÉ.

¶49

F »£Àß¯ÉAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀPÁðj ¥ÀæxÀªÀÄ zÀeÉð PÁ¯ÉÃdÄUÀ¼À°è ¥Àæ¨sÁgÀ ¥ÁæA±ÀÄ¥Á®gÁV PÀvÀðªÀå ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀ ¥ÁæzsÁå¥ÀPÀgÀÄ, ¸ÀºÀ/¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¥ÁæzsÁå¥ÀPÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¤ªÀÈwÛ, ªÀUÁðªÀuÉ, EvÁå¢ ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è ¥ÁæA±ÀÄ¥Á®gÀ

¶50

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:46445-DB WP No. 8908 of 2024

¶51

¥Àæ¨sÁgÀ¢AzÀ ©qÀÄUÀqÉ ºÉÆAzÀÄªÁUÀ ¥ÁæA±ÀÄ¥Á®gÀ ¥Àæ¨sÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÉÃªÁ eÉÃµÀ×vÉAiÀÄ°è »jAiÀÄgÁzÀ ¥ÁæzÁå¥ÀPÀgÀÄ, ¸ÀºÀ/¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¥ÁæzsÁå¥ÀPÀjUÉ PÀqÁØAiÀÄªÁV ªÀ»¸À®Ä ¸ÀÆa¹zÉ. MAzÀÄ ªÉÃ¼É ¸ÀzÀjAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ ¥ÁæA±ÀÄ¥Á®gÀ ¥Àæ¨sÁgÀ ªÀ»¹PÉÆ¼Àî®Ä ¤gÁPÀj¹zÀ°è CªÀjAzÀ °TvÀªÁV ¤gÁPÀgÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀzÀ ¸ÉÃªÁ eÉÃµÀ×vÉAiÀÄ°è »jAiÀÄgÁzÀ ¥ÁæzsÁå¥ÀPÀgÀÄ, ¸ÀºÀ/¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¥ÁæzsÁå¥ÀPÀjUÉ ªÀ»¸À®Ä ¸ÀÆa¹zÉ.

¶52

ªÀÄÄAzÀÄªÀgÉzÀÄ ¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ PÁ¯ÉÃf£À°è ¸ÉÃªÁeÉÃµÀ×vÉAiÀÄ°è »jAiÀÄgÁzÀ ¥ÁæzsÁå¥ÀPÀgÀÄ, ¸ÀºÀ/¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¥ÁæzsÁå¥ÀPÀjzÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ QjAiÀÄ ¨ÉÆÃzsÀPÀgÀÄ ¥Àæ¨sÁgÀ ¥ÁæA±ÀÄ¥Á®gÁV PÀvÀðªÀå ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝ°è PÀÆqÀ¯ÉÃ »jAiÀÄ ¥ÁæzsÁå¥ÀPÀgÀÄ, ¸ÀºÀ/¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¥ÁæzsÁå¥ÀPÀjUÉ ¥ÁæA±ÀÄ¥Á®gÀ ¥Àæ¨sÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀ»¸À®Ä ¸ÀÆa¹zÉ.

¶53

¸À»/DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ PÁ¯ÉÃdÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ vÁAwæPÀ ²PÀët

¶54

EªÀjUÉ:

¶55

PÁ¯ÉÃdÄ ²PÀët ¥ÁæzÉÃ²PÀ PÀbÉÃjUÀ¼À dAn ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄUÀ½UÉ-vÀªÀÄä ªÁå¦ÛAiÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðj PÁ¯ÉÃdÄUÀ¼À°è ¸ÉÃªÁeÉÃµÀ×vÉAiÀÄ°è »jAiÀÄgÁzÀ ¥ÁæzsÁå¥ÀPÀgÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ/¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¥ÁæzsÁå¥ÀPÀgÀÄ ¥ÁæA±ÀÄ¥Á®gÀ ¥Àæ¨sÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ªÀð»¸À®Ä vÀªÀÄä ºÀAvÀzÀ°èAiÉÄÃ CUÀvÀå PÀæªÀÄªÀ»¸ÀÄªÀAvÉ ¸ÀÆa¹zÉ. 2. ¸ÀPÁðj ¥ÀæxÀªÀÄ zÀeÉð PÁ¯ÉÃdÄUÀ¼À ¥Àæ¨sÁj ¥ÁæA±ÀÄ¥Á®gÀÄUÀ½UÉCUÀvÀåPÀæªÀÄPÁÌV.

¶56

ªÀiÁ»w C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, ªÀiÁ»w vÀAvÀæeÁÕ£À «¨sÁUÀ, PÉÃAzÀæ PÀbÉÃj, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ-E¯ÁSÁ ªÉ¨ï¸ÉÊmï£À°è ¥ÀæPÀn¸À®Ä.

¶57

PÀbÉÃj ¥Àæw.

¶58

5. The vehement submission of learned counsel

¶59

for the petitioner that while placing an employee in a higher post on In-charge basis, ordinarily the seniority does not figure as a factor, is supported by the decision in

¶60

B.N.Dhotrad supra. However, Circular of the kind was not

¶61

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:46445-DB WP No. 8908 of 2024

¶62

there when that decision was rendered and therefore, it is not invokable for aiding the petitioner's case, as rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the private respondent. It hardly needs to be stated that a decision is an authority for the proposition laid down in a given fact matrix and not for all that which logically follows

¶63

from what has been so laid down vide QUINN vs. LEATHEM² . Placing a junior as the Chief of an institution even on In-charge basis would cause a lot of heartburn to the senior members, needs no research to ascertain. It is as obvious as can be. A person occupying the position of Principal would obviously exercise some supervisory powers over his seniors and that would be a kind of torture since offends their sense of justice. In some cases, we have come across In-charge official writing adverse remarks in the Annual Performance Reports of seniors too. That would be like sprinkling salt on the injury. Perhaps all this has gone into making of Circular of the kind, learned

¶64

2 (1901) A.C. 495, 506

¶65

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:46445-DB WP No. 8908 of 2024

¶66

counsel appearing for private respondent pressed into service. Some extraordinary reason has to be assigned for placing a junior in a higher position on In-charge basis.

¶67

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the private respondent had given a letter dated 20.01.2023 saying that she was not inclined to work in the post of Principal on in-charge basis, allegedly because of mental agony caused by a section of her colleagues and therefore, she could not have knocked at the doors of the Tribunal. This will not come to the aid of the petitioner who too had given a similar letter, evenly dated. One such letter silences the voice of another and therefore, they cannot be pressed into service by either of them.

¶68

The Tribunal having considered all aspects of the matter has rendered justice to the cause that was carried to its portals. No errors of significance have been demonstrated. All this being said, learned counsel for the petitioner is justified in submitting that no costs could

¶69

¶70

NC: 2024:KHC:46445-DB WP No. 8908 of 2024

¶71

have been levied on his client and therefore, we upset the

¶72

said levy.

¶73

In the above circumstances, this petition being

¶74

devoid of merits, is liable be and accordingly dismissed,

¶75

costs having been made easy.

¶76

Sd/(KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE

¶77

Sd/(C M JOSHI) JUDGE

¶78

SD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

Sri. Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Chandrappa 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sundara Babu Vs the Tahsildar

Nagabhushan Reddy Vs the Tahsildar

Sri Binoj Koshy Vs the State of Karnataka

The Karnataka Lokayukta Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Saroja Patil Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. Basavaraj Menashinakai, Vs the State of Karnataka