Disposed¶4

Sri. Basavaraj S/O Nandeppa Manibanakar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC26 Nov 2025WP/103914/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of on the same lines as the Coordinate Bench judgment in W.P. No.110238/2016, under which the like petition was allowed and the respondents were directed to reconsider the representation dated 15.06.2016 (Annexure-S) within three months. ¶4

Sri. Basavaraj S/O Nandeppa Manibanakar Vs the… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶4

Issue for consideration

Whether the communication/endorsement bearing No.ED-25/TVE/2016 dated 19.8.2016 issued by respondent No.1 (Annexure-T) is liable to be quashed by writ of certiorari. +1 more

¶¶29

Ratio / Principle

Since the issue in the lis is covered on all fours by the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench in W.P. No.110238/2016, the present petition also stands disposed of for the same reasons.

¶4

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 103914 of 2022 (S-RES), High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench — oral order dated 26 November 2025 by Justice M. Nagaprasanna. Filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by Basavaraj s/o Nandeppa Manibanakar (retired lecturer, aged 68), through S. K. Kayakmath, against the State of Karnataka (Secretary, Primary and Secondary Education Department), the Director of Vocation Education and the Deputy Director of Vocation Education, Haveri (Girija S. Hiremath, HCGP). Prayers: (a) certiorari to quash endorsement No.ED-25/TVE/2016 dated 19.8.2016 (Annexure-T); (b) mandamus to reconsider the representation dated 15.06.2016 (Annexure-S). Background (as recited in the quoted Coordinate Bench order): the petitioner was approved as a full-time lecturer from 24.06.1982 but denied the full-time scale from 1983, while similarly placed Smt. Shyamalabai and Smt. Laxmibai (approved 01.07.1982) received it; an earlier order dated 28.04.2016 in W.P.No.103762/2016 had directed consideration afresh. Counsel for both sides, in unison, submitted that the lis stood covered by the Coordinate Bench judgment in W.P. No.110238/2016 (stated as disposed of on 16th March 2016), wherein the like petition was allowed and reconsideration was directed within three months, on the reasoning that approval of the post entails entitlement unless expressly cancelled. Holding the issue covered 'on all fours', this court disposed of the present petition for the same reasons.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:16543 WP No. 103914 of 2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 103914 OF 2022 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. BASAVARAJ S/O. NANDEPPA MANIBANAKAR AGE. 68 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED LECTURE, R/O. TAMBAKAD NAGAR 2^ND CROSS, BEHIND COURT, HIREKERUR, TALUK. HIREKERUR, DIST. HAVERI.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. S. K. KAYAKMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETATY PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶12

VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL

¶13

Digitally signed byVISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court ofKarnataka Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.12.02 11:53:13 +0530

¶14

THE DIRECTOR OF VOCATION EDUCATION VISHWESHARAYYA MAIN TOWER 8^TH FLOOR, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU.

¶15

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF VOCATION EDUCATION DEVAGIRI, D.C. OFFICE COMPOUND, HAVERI.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP)

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC-D:16543 WP No. 103914 of 2022

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO:

¶22

A. BY WAY OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI THIS HON BLE COURT BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE COMMUNICATION/ ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 THE SECRETARY, PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, BENGALURU BEARING NO.ED-25/TVE/2016 DATED 19.8.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-T.

¶23

B. BY WAY OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS THIS HON BLE COURT BE PLEASED TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO RECONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15.06.2016 MADE BY THE WRIT PETITION VIDE ANNEXURE-S.

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)

¶27

The petitioner is before this court seeking the

¶28

following prayer:

¶29

a. “By way of writ of certiorari this Honble court be pleased to quash the communication/endorsement issued by the respondent no.1 the secretary, primary and secondary education department, Bengaluru bearing No.ED-25/TVE/2016 dated 19.8.2016 vide Annexure-T .

¶30

b. By way of writ of mandamus this hon ble court be pleased to direct the respondent no.1 to reconsider the representation dated 15.06.2016 made by the writ petition vide Annexure-S .

¶31

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC-D:16543 WP No. 103914 of 2022

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

c. Pass any other order/relief, that this Hon’ble Court deems fir in the nature and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity”.

¶35

Heard Sri.S.K.Kayakamath, learned counsel for

¶36

the petitioner and Smt.Girija S. Hiremath, leaned HCGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶37

Learned counsel appearing for the parties, in unison, submit that the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment rendered by the Coordinate Bench in W.P. No.110238/2016, disposed of on 16^th March 2016. The Coordinate Bench held as follows:

¶38

“Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents and perused the records.

¶39

The petitioner claims that, he was appointed as a Full Time Lecturer in the 4^th respondent, vide orders of the Government dated 24.06.1982 and his appointment was also approved.

¶40

Even after discharging his services for a period o f one year from 24.06.1982 for which period the full time payment was made as full time lecture. But subsequently he was denied with the full time scale attached to his post with ef fect from the year 1983, but he was continued with consolidated pay.

¶41

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:16543 WP No. 103914 of 2022

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

He also claims that, similarly placed employees by name Smt.Shyamalabai and Smt. Laxmibai whose appointment were also approved by the competent authority subsequent to the date of approval of the petitioner precisely that, was on 01.07.1982. They were provided with full time pay scale even from 01.07 .1982, by virtue o f the Government order in the year 1983.

¶44

Questioning this disparity, the petitioner has approached this court in W.P.No.103762/2016 and vide order dated 28 .04.2016, this court has directed the respondents herein who were also respondents therein, to consider the disparity between the above said lecturers and to take a decision and to pass appropriate orders on the representation a fresh to be made by the petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt o f a copy o f the said order.

¶45

In consideration of the above said direction issued by this court on representation of the petitioner the Government has passed an order dated 19.08.2016, wherein it is categorically stated that, earlier to 1982, the petitioner was receiving consolidated pay up to 1982-83. The same set of facts were also available even to Smt.Syamalabai and Smt.Laxmibai, it is evident from the records that earlier to their approval o f the post of the petitioner i.e., prior to 24.06 .1982, so far as the petitioner is concerned and on 01.07.1982, so far as the said other persons, i.e., Smt.Shyamalabai and Smt.Laxmibai are concerned, they were all receiving consolidated pay.

¶46

However the Government has stated that, so far as petitioner is concerned for the year 1982-1983 only

¶47

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC-D:16543 WP No. 103914 of 2022

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

as a special case the post o f petitioner was approved and salary was paid for the year 1982-83 only. But as could be seen from the orders of the Government i.e., specifically as per Annexure-J dated 06.02.2013 the Director, Vocational Education Directorate has requested the Secretary to the Government to treat the petitioner on par with Smt.Syamalabai and Smt.Laxmibai as the post of the petitioner was approved as a full time lecturer from 24.06.1982. There is no consideration so far as this particular aspect is concerned as to why from 1982-83 onwards even inspite of granting approval, the salaries have not been paid to the petitioner as full time lecturers and how there is a disparity between the said Smt.Shyamalabai and as well as Smt.Laxmibai with that of the petitioner is not explained in the order passed by the Government in order to deny such remedy to petitioner.

¶51

When once the approval o f the post is given and also recognized the petitioner also as full time lecturer the consequences would be, he is entitled for all the remedy thereafter. Unless the order passed approving the post of the petitioner, as a full time lecturer is set at rest or cancelled by Government by appropriate orders. Merely, the petitioner was not paid with the full time lecturer’s pay subsequent to 1982-83 does not mean to say that, and not sufficient to draw inference that earlier order of making him as full time lecturer is set aside by the Government.

¶52

Under the above said circumstances, the respondents have not properly considered the claim o f the petitioner. There fore, the same requires to be reconsider

¶53

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC-D:16543 WP No. 103914 of 2022

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

in view of the above said observation of this court hence the following:

¶57

ORDER

¶58

i. Petition is allowed.

¶59

ii. Consequently, the respondents are hereby directed to reconsider the representation of the petitioner dated 15.06.2016 as per Annexure-S within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order in the light of the observation made in the order above.”

¶60

In the light of the issue being covered on all fours by

¶61

the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench (supra), and for the same reasons, the present petition also stands disposed of.

¶62

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶63

AC CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 120

Sri. Basavaraj S/O Nandeppa Manibanakar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Basavaraj S/O Nandeppa Manibanakar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ishwar Chandra Mudegowdar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri H P Ramesh Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Jdv Holdings Private Limited Vs State of Karnataka

Mahanthesha Gurappa Gedageri S/O Gurappa Gedageri Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr. Savitribai Pawar Vs the University of Grants Commission

Smt Sucheta W/O Late Ajit Velankar Vs State Bank of India