The State Of Karnataka v. Prabhuling Basavaraju Jabashetty

Karnataka HC8 Apr 2025WA/100028/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: grant-in-aid; Assistant Librarian; non-teaching staff; recommendation versus approval; deemed rejection; delay and laches; slept over right; permanently unaided posts; Government Order dated 07.08.2003; Director of Collegiate Education; KLE Society college Mahalingapura; writ appeal allowed; Single Judge judgment set aside. Relevant for: State/institutional appeals against directions to extend grant-in-aid benefits; legal effect of omission from an approved grant-in-aid list; stale claims for grant-in-aid after policy decisions; distinction between recommendation letters and sanctioning orders.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal allowed; order dated 03.02.2023 passed in W.P. No.77031 of 2013 set aside; liberty left to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy available in law. ¶¶72

The State Of Karnataka Vs Prabhuling Basavaraju Jabashetty — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ appeal allowed; order dated 03.02.2023 passed in W.P. No.77031 of 2013 set aside; liberty left to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy available in law.

¶¶72

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned Single Judge is justified in directing the respondents-authorities to extend the benefits accrued to the petitioner along with other employees, who were appointed as per Annexure-B to the petition while setting aside the order dated 25.02.2012 Annexure-F?

¶¶53

Ratio / Principle

Annexure-B is only a recommendation letter of the Director of Collegiate Education to the Secretary recommending teaching and non-teaching staff for grant-in-aid; it is not an order approving grant-in-aid. The learned Single Judge misdirected himself in proceeding on the basis that Annexure-B itself was an approval, and his contrary finding is wholly erroneous.

¶¶64

Key takeaways

While approving/admitting teaching and non-teaching staff to grant-in-aid under Order dated 11.03.1996 (Annexure-R4), the Government accorded permission only for the post of Librarian; the petitioner, who was working as an Assistant Librarian, was not included, which means his case for approval to admit him to grant-in-aid is deemed to have been rejected.ratio¶¶63
The petitioner never questioned the non-inclusion of his name in the approved list of teaching and non-teaching staff till 2013, nearly 15 years; his case having been rejected in 1996, he slept over his right for over a decade and approached the Court only after the State's policy decision to treat non-teaching vacant/unapproved posts as on 01.03.2001 as permanently unaided.ratio¶¶68

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal (S-RES), High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench (S G Pandit & C.M. Poonacha, JJ.; judgment per S G Pandit, J.) — Grant-in-aid — Assistant Librarian omitted from approved list — Held: (i) Annexure-B is merely a recommendation letter of the Director of Collegiate Education recommending teaching and non-teaching staff for grant-in-aid, not an order of approval; the learned Single Judge erred in treating it as an approval order; (ii) under the approval Order dated 11.03.1996 (Annexure-R4) only 8 teaching and 13 non-teaching staff were admitted and only the post of Librarian was sanctioned, so the petitioner (Assistant Librarian) was excluded and his case is deemed rejected since 1996; (iii) the petitioner did not challenge his non-inclusion for nearly 15 years, sleeping over his rights and approaching the Court only after the policy decision (GO dated 07.08.2003; Annexure-F dated 25.02.2012) treating vacant/unapproved non-teaching posts as on 01.03.2001 as permanently unaided; (iv) grant-in-aid cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Writ appeal allowed; Single Judge's judgment dated 03.02.2023 in W.P. No.77031/2013 (which had set aside Annexure-F and directed extension of benefits with Rs.10,000/- costs) set aside; petitioner at liberty to avail appropriate remedy.

¶1

¶2

WA No.100028 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶9

WRIT APPEAL NO.100028 OF 2024 (S-RES)

¶10

BETWEEN

¶11

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, BENGALORE-560001.

¶12

2 . DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER, COLLEGE EDUCATION, BANGALORE-560001.

¶13

...APPELLANTS

¶14

(BY SRI. G.K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND

¶16

1 . PRABHULING, S/O BASAVARAJU JABASHETTY, AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE, R/O VIDYANAGAR, MAHALINGAPUR 587312.

¶17

MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR

¶18

Digitally signed byMOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶19

2 . THE MANAGEMENT OF KLE SOCIETIES, SRI CHANNAGIRISHWAR PRASADHIK ARTS AND COMMERCE COLLEGE, MAHALINGAPURA, R/BY ITS PRINCIPAL, MAHALINGAPURA-587312.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. ANANT P. SAVADI, ADVOCATE FOR R1) (NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)

¶22

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.02.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.77031/2013 (S-RES) & ETC.,

¶23

¶24

WA No.100028 of 2024

¶25

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 24.03.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, S.G. PANDIT, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND

¶27

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶28

CAV JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT)

¶29

The State authorities i.e., the Officers of the Education Department are before this Court in this intra-court appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Act, 1961, questioning the order dated 03.02.2023 passed in W.P. No.77031 of 2013, whereby the learned Single Judge set aside the order dated 25.02.2012 (Annexure-F) and directed respondent No.3 to extend all the benefits accrued to the petitioner along with other employees, who were appointed as per Annexure-B to the writ petition.

¶30

The parties to the proceedings would be referred to as they stood before the writ court. Appellants herein were the respondents, and respondent No.1 herein was the petitioner before the learned Single Judge.

¶31

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner claims that he was appointed as an Assistant Librarian under Order

¶32

3 - WA No.100028 of 2024

¶33

dated 05.11.1993 in respondent No.2-College and his appointment was approved under communication dated 31.01.1994. Thereafter, respondent No.2-institution was admitted to grant-in-aid by order dated 21.01.1995. It is stated that, along with other teaching and non-teaching staff, the petitioner’s name was also recommended for admitting to grant-in-aid as an Assistant Librarian. Under order dated 11.03.1996 (Annexure-R4), while approving the grand-in-aid to the teaching and non-teaching staff of respondent No.2institution, the name of the petitioner was left out by mistake. The petitioner made a representation to include his name in the list of non-teaching staff, who were admitted to grant-in-aid, which was forwarded to the Commissioner of Collegiate Education under covering letter dated 04.03.2004 by respondent No.2. Under Annexure-F, dated 25.02.2012, the Director of Collegiate Education, Bengaluru, has communicated to the Joint Director, Department of Collegiate Education, Dharwad, that, in terms of Government Order dated 07.08.2003, vacant and unapproved posts of non-teaching staff as on 01.03.2001 shall be permanently unaided. Questioning the same, the petitioner was before the learned Single Jude in the above stated W.P. No.77031/2013. The learned Single

¶34

¶35

WA No.100028 of 2024

¶36

Judge was of the opinion that under Annexure-B, the name of the petitioner and others have been accepted by the Director of Collegiate Education for admitting them to grant-in-aid and further held that the reasons assigned by the State for nonapproval of the name of the petitioner for admitting to grant-inaid is arbitrary and unacceptable, and directed the respondents-authorities to extend all the benefits accrued to the petitioner along with other employees who were appointed as per Annexure-B to the writ petition. The learned Single Judge also awarded costs of Rs.10,000/- in favour of the petitioner. Questioning the same, the State authorities are in appeal.

¶37

Heard Sri. G.K.Hiregoudar, learned Government Advocate for the respondents/appellants, and Sri. Anant P.Savadi, learned counsel appearing for petitioner/respondent No.1. Perused the entire writ appeal papers.

¶38

Learned Government Advocate would submit that

¶39

the petitioner was never admitted to grant-in-aid. He further submits that the petitioner claims that he was appointed as an Assistant Librarian and though his case was recommended for admitting to grant-in-aid, while approving, the Director of

¶40

5 - WA No.100028 of 2024

¶41

Collegiate Education, has specifically not approved the name of the petitioner for admitting him to grant-in-aid. He submits that while admitting to grant-in-aid, the post of Librarian was approved, and the petitioner kept quite all along since March, 1996 and approached this Court only in the year 2013. It is submitted that the petitioner was aware of the fact that his name was not included in the list of grant-in-aid, but without challenging non-inclusion of his name to the grant-in-aid, the petitioner cannot contend that his name was left out while approving the list of teaching and non-teaching staff to grant-in-aid. Further, the learned Government Advocate points out that as held by the learned Single Judge, Annexure-B is not an order of approval of the teaching and non-teaching staff to grant-in-aid, but Annexure-B is only a letter from the Director of Collegiate Education to the Secretary, Education Department recommending the list of teaching and non-teaching staff for approval to grant-in-aid. He submits that, in pursuance of the said direction, on examination of the entire proposal, the Government by its order dated 30.01.1996 admitted only 8 teaching and 13 non-teaching staff for grant-in-aid. He submits that whereas the recommendation was for including 13 teaching staff and 18 non-teaching staff to grant-in-aid. It is

¶42

¶43

WA No.100028 of 2024

¶44

submitted that taking note of the students’ strength and financial condition, the State, initially, had admitted 8 teaching and 13 non-teaching staff. Therefore, he submits that while admitting the post of Librarian to grant-in-aid, the case of the petitioner, who was working as an Assistant Librarian, was not approved. Thus, learned Government Advocate submits that the learned Single Judge, on a wrong notion, opined that Annexure-B itself is an order of approval to grant-in-aid. Further learned Government Advocate would submit that the grant-in-aid is not a right and cannot be claimed by any person as a matter of right; extension of grant-in-aid is the prerogative of the Government and only on examining the entitlement, depending on other various factors and financial implications, the State Government would take a decision to admit or not to admit to grant-in-aid. Thus, he prays for allowing the writ appeal and setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶45

Per contra , Sri. Anant P.Savadi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would support the order of the learned Single Judge and submits that the name of the petitioner was recommended for approval to grant-in-aid, but by mistake the name of the petitioner was not included in the

¶46

¶47

WA No.100028 of 2024

¶48

list of teaching and non-teaching staff who were admitted to grant-in-aid. He invites attention of this Court to Annexure-E a letter dated 15.04.2011 addressed by the Director of the Collegiate Education to the Joint Director of Department of Collegiate Education, and submits that the Director has categorically stated that by oversight, the name of the petitioner is not included in the list of teaching and nonteaching staff for admitting them to grant-in-aid. He submits that the petitioner is working in respondent No.2-institution since 1996 and he would be entitled for admission to grant-inaid. Learned counsel would submit that under Order dated 11.03.1996 (Annexure-R4) only 8 teaching staff and 13 nonteaching staff were admitted to grant-in-aid, but subsequently under Order dated 24.06.1996 as well as 05.05.1997 (Annexures-R5 & R6) certain other teaching staff were admitted to grant-in-aid and at that time also petitioner’s name was not included for approval of grant-in-aid. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the learned Single Judge was right in directing to extend all benefits accrued to the petitioner along with other employees, who were appointed as per Annexure-B to the writ petition. Thus, learned counsel would pray for dismissal of the writ appeal.

¶49

¶50

WA No.100028 of 2024

¶51

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶52

and on perusal of the entire writ appeal papers, the only point which falls for consideration is,

¶53

¶54

The answer to the above point would be in the

¶55

negative for the following reasons:

¶56

(a) The learned counsel for the petitioner filed an application, dated 24.03.2025, for production of additional documents. Annexure-R1 produced along with the application would indicate that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Librarian on 05.11.1993 by respondent No.2-Management and his name was forwarded to the competent authority for approval. Annexure-R2 dated 31.01.1990 would indicate that the petitioner’s name was registered temporarily. Thereafter, respondent No.2-institution was admitted to grant-in-aid under Annexure-A dated 23.07.1995. A perusal of the said Government Order would indicate that respondent No.2-institution was admitted to grant-in-aid

¶57

¶58

WA No.100028 of 2024

¶59

without showing the number of teaching or non-teaching staff, whereas in respect of other institutions number of teaching and non-teaching staff is indicated.

¶60

(b) The learned Single Judge proceeded to hold that under Annexure-B, the name of the petitioner, along with others, has been accepted by the Director of Collegiate Education for grant-in-aid. The said finding is contrary to Annexure-B itself. Annexure-B is a recommendation of the Director of Collegiate Education to the Secretary, Department of Collegiate Education, for admitting the teaching staff and non-teaching staff of respondent No.2institution to grant-in-aid; it is not an order approving the grant-in-aid insofar as teaching and non-teaching staff. While recommendation was made to admit 13 teaching and 18 non-teaching staff to grant-in-aid, the Director of Collegiate Education under Order dated 11.03.1996 (Annexure-R4) has admitted only 8 teaching and 13 non-teaching staff to grant-in-aid. While approving or admitting the teaching and non-teaching staff to grant-inaid, the Government has accorded permission to admit only the post of Librarian, and the name of the petitioner, who was working as an Assistant Librarian, was not

¶61

10 -

¶62

WA No.100028 of 2024

¶63

included, which means the case of the petitioner for approval to admit him to grant-in-aid is deemed to have been rejected. The petitioner never questioned noninclusion of his name in the approved list of teaching and non-teaching staff to grant-in-aid till 2013 almost for nearly 15 years and by the said time much water has flown and the Government has taken a decision to treat all the nonteaching vacant and unapproved post as on 01.03.2001 to be permanently unaided.

¶64

(c) The learned Single Judge was not right in holding that Annexure-B itself is approval of teaching and non-teaching staff to grant-in-aid. A reading of the said document would indicate that it is only a recommendation letter. The petitioner has produced order dated 11.03.1996 (Annexure-R4), wherein 8 teaching staff and 13 nonteaching staff are admitted to grant-in-aid. Thus, the learned Single Judge misdirected himself and proceeded to allow the writ petition based on Annexure-B which is wholly erroneous.

¶65

(d) Moreover, the petitioner cannot, as a matter of right, claim grant-in-aid. The petitoiner’s case for admitting to grant

¶66

11 -

¶67

WA No.100028 of 2024

¶68

was rejected in the year 1996 itself and the petitioner slept over his right over a decade. The petitioner has approached the Court only after the policy decision of the State to treat non-teaching vacant/unapproved post to be permanently unaided.

¶69

For the reasons recorded above, the writ appeal deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the following:

¶70

ORDER

¶71

i) The writ appeal is allowed.

¶72

ii) The order dated 03.02.2023 passed in W.P. No.77031 of 2013 is set aside.

¶73

iii) It is open for the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy available in law.

¶74

Sd/(S G PANDIT) JUDGE

¶75

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶76

kms

¶77

CT:VP

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment dated 03.02.2023 in W.P. No.77031 of 2013 (S-RES): the learned Single Judge set aside the order dated 25.02.2012 (Annexure-F), directed extension of all benefits accrued to the petitioner along with other employees appointed as per Annexure-B, and awarded costs of Rs.10,000/- in favour of the petitioner.¶¶29
Learned Single Judge, High Court of Karnataka (Dharwad Bench) · 03.02.2023
Prior proceeding
Petitioner claims he was appointed as Assistant Librarian in respondent No.2-College under Order dated 05.11.1993, and his appointment was approved under communication dated 31.01.1994.¶¶33
Prior proceeding
As per the brief facts, respondent No.2-institution was admitted to grant-in-aid by order dated 21.01.1995.¶¶33
Prior proceeding
Under order dated 11.03.1996 (Annexure-R4), while approving grant-in-aid to the teaching and non-teaching staff of respondent No.2-institution, the petitioner's name was left out by mistake.¶¶33
Prior proceeding
Petitioner's representation for inclusion in the list of non-teaching staff admitted to grant-in-aid was forwarded to the Commissioner of Collegiate Education under covering letter dated 04.03.2004 by respondent No.2.¶¶33
Prior proceeding
Annexure-F dated 25.02.2012: Director of Collegiate Education, Bengaluru, communicated to the Joint Director, Dharwad, in terms of Government Order dated 07.08.2003, that vacant and unapproved posts of non-teaching staff as on 01.03.2001 shall be permanently unaided; this order was questioned in W.P. No.77031/2013.¶¶33
Prior proceeding
In W.P. No.77031/2013 the learned Single Judge held that under Annexure-B the petitioner's name and others were accepted by the Director of Collegiate Education for grant-in-aid, found the State's reasons arbitrary and unacceptable, directed extension of all benefits, and awarded costs of Rs.10,000/- in favour of the petitioner.¶¶36
Prior proceeding
Application dated 24.03.2025 filed by the petitioner's counsel for production of additional documents (Annexures-R1, R2; Annexure-A).¶¶56
Prior proceeding
Annexure-R2 dated 31.01.1990 indicates that the petitioner's name was registered temporarily.¶¶56
Prior proceeding
Annexure-A dated 23.07.1995: respondent No.2-institution admitted to grant-in-aid; perusal shows the admission was made without indicating the number of teaching or non-teaching staff, unlike in respect of other institutions. (Note: the brief facts at ¶33 state admission by order dated 21.01.1995.)¶¶56

The State Of Karnataka v. Prabhuling Basavaraju Jabashetty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State Of Karnataka v. Prabhuling Basavaraju Jabashetty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Executive Engineer ,Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited Vs Geeta D/O Shrishail Ganji

The Belgaum Dist. Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Vs the Commissioner of Income Tax

Smt Usha Mahesh Dasar Vs State of Karnataka

The State of Karnataka, Vs Sri Veereshkumar Mallikarjun Kolhar S/O Mallikarjun

Shaikh Mohammad Hanif Bepari Vs Smt. Shubha B

Lalita W/O. Adiveppa Mavinakatti Vs Adiveppa Ningappa Mavinakatti