Sri H N Aruna Devi Vs the State of Karnataka

SRI H N ARUNA DEVI W/O B V SRINIVASA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS WORKING AS ASST. MISTRESS R B A N M S MIDDLE SCHOOL NO 30, DICKESON ROAD BANGALORE 560042 R/AT NO 45, 1ST MAIN ROAD COLLEGE TEACHERS LAYOUT BANASANKARI III STAGE BANGALORE 560085. …PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI. SRIKANTH M P., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION M S BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE 560001.

¶16

THE COMMISSIONER FOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:22537 WP No. 1043 of 2022 C/W WP No. 16487 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

NEW PUBLIC OFFICES NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE 560001.

¶21

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS PRIMARY EDUCATION NEW PUBLIC OFFICES NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE 560001.

¶22

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS BANGALORE NORTH DISTRICT K G ROAD, BANGALORE 560002.

¶23

THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER NORTH RANGE 3, KAMARAJ ROAD BANGALORE 560042.

¶24

DHARMARATHNAKARA RAI BAHADDUR ARCOT NARASIMNSWAMY MUDALIAR EDUCATIONAL CHARITIES, NO 24 GANGADHAR CHETTY ROAD BANGALORE 560042 BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA., AGA FOR R1 TO R5: R6 SERVED)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 26.06.2019 PASSED BY THE R1 IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED VIDE ANNEXUREAK ISSUED BY THE R1 AND TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO APPROVE THE APPOINTMENT OF THE PETITIONER FORTHWITH FROM THE DATE OF HER INITIAL APPOINTMENT WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFIT AND ETC.

¶27

IN WP NO. 16487/2025

¶28

BETWEEN:

¶29

SMT C PUSHPA W/O. SRI. A.FRANCIS

¶30

3 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:22537 WP No. 1043 of 2022 C/W WP No. 16487 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT MISTRESS R.B.A.N.M.S.THIRUKULATHAR PRIMARY SCHOOL CANTONMENT, BANGALORE-560 042 R/AT MARY'S BEAUTY PARLOUR NETHRAVATHI EXTENSION DEVASANDRA, K.R.PURAM BANGALORE-560 036.

¶34

...PETITIONER

¶35

(BY SRI. SRIKANTH M P., ADVOCATE)

¶36

AND:

¶37

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION M.S.BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001.

¶38

THE COMMISSIONER FOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION NEW PUBLIC OFFICES, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE-560 001.

¶39

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS PRIMARY EDUCATION, NEW PUBLIC OFFICES NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶40

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS BANGALORE NORTH DISTRICT K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 002.

¶41

THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER NORTH RANGE-3, KAMARAJ ROAD BANGALORE-560 042.

¶42

DHARMARATHNAKARA RAI BAHADDUR ARCOT NARRAINSWAMY MUDALIAR EDUCATIONAL CHARITIES, NO.24 GANGADHAR CHETTY ROAD

¶43

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:22537 WP No. 1043 of 2022 C/W WP No. 16487 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

BANGALORE-560 042 BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶46

...RESPONDENTS

¶47

(BY SRI.VIKAS ROJIPURA., AGA FOR R1 TO R5)

¶48

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO.EP 41 PGC 2025 DATED 29.01.2025 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED VIDE ANNEXURE-AS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.

¶49

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶50

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶51

ORAL ORDER

¶52

These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 26.06.2019 vide Annexure-AK and the endorsement dated 29.01.2025 vide Annexure-AR, respectively, both issued by the first respondent, rejecting the recommendation of the Management for approval of the appointment of the petitioners on the ground that under the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Recruitment and Terms and Conditions of Service of Employees in Private Aided Primary and Secondary Educational Institutions) Rules, 1999 (for short, ‘1999 Rules’) stating that, no

¶53

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:22537 WP No. 1043 of 2022 C/W WP No. 16487 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

recruitment shall be made by any aided institution until

¶56

the list of retrenched teachers are exhausted.

¶57

The case of the petitioners is that they were appointed as Assistant Teachers in Primary School of the sixth respondent in the year 2001. The proposal for approval of the appointment was forwarded to the respondents and the respondents failed to consider the same, the petitioners approached this Court by filing W.P.Nos.5814-5816/2012. This Court, by order dated 23.02.2012 directed the respondents to consider the proposal of the petitioners therein for approval of their appointment. Thereafter, the proposal has been rejected by issuing an endorsement dated 19.04.2013 only on the ground that there is prohibition under proviso 2 to Rule 11(6) of the 1999 Rules for recruitment of the teachers in aided institutions until the list of retrenched employees was exhausted, since the Institute is run by the sixth respondent – Management, which is a minority institution. This Court, in the earlier round of litigation in

¶58

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:22537 WP No. 1043 of 2022 C/W WP No. 16487 of 2025

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

W.P.No.32658/2019 set aside the similar order issued by the respondents in respect of the petitioner on the ground that the approval should not be denied because of the proviso 5 to Rule 11(6) of 1999 Rules. Since proviso 5 to Rule 11(6) of the 1999 Rules, stated that no retrenched employee or staff shall be allowed to minority institution for being appointed against the vacancy. This Court, in W.P.No.32658/2019 disposed of on 08.10.2021 quashed the Government Order and directed the respondents to reconsider the representation in accordance with law. Again, the first respondent has issued an endorsement rejecting the request of the petitioners on the very same ground by invoking proviso 2 to Rule 11(6) of 1999 Rules. This Court in W.P.No.176/2023, following the earlier judgment of this Court in W.P.No.32658/2019 dated 08.10.2021 allowed the writ petition and set aside the endorsement and directed the respondents to reconsider the matter afresh. Even thereafter, again the endorsement has been issued rejecting the request, on the

¶61

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:22537 WP No. 1043 of 2022 C/W WP No. 16487 of 2025

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

ground that proviso 5 to Rule 11(6) of 1999 Rules was inserted on 30.06.2004. The petitioners’ appointments were made in the year 2021.

¶64

In respect of the very same petitioner in the earlier round of litigation, this Court in W.P.No.32568/2018 disposed of on 08.10.2021 has quashed the endorsement issued on the very same ground by invoking proviso 2 to Rule 11(6) of 1999 Rules. After considering Rule 11(6) of the 1999 Rules, the Court has held as follows:

¶65

“A careful reading of the above provision of Rules would indicate that the Government or Competent Authority could allot through computerized counseling the retrenched employees on the basis of seniority to any other Institution where there is regular sanctioned vacancy and to appoint such candidates. The second proviso prohibits the recruitment by any aided Institution until list of retrenched teachers are exhausted. Fifth proviso provides that no retrenched employee/staff shall be allotted to Minority Institution for being appointed against a vacancy. Therefore, in view of

¶66

8 -

¶67

NC: 2025:KHC:22537 WP No. 1043 of 2022 C/W WP No. 16487 of 2025

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

the above proviso, the reasons assigned by the first respondent/State Government to reject the proposal of the petitioner for approval of the petitioner's appointment to grant-in-aid is wholly arbitrary and unreasonable and not in consonance with the above rule. When fifth proviso makes it clear that no retrenched employee/staff shall be allotted to a Minority Institution for being appointed against a vacancy, the question of restricting the Minority Institution from recruitment to fill up the vacancy would not arise. While passing the impugned Government Order, the Government has taken note of the second proviso to sub-rule (6) of Rule 11 of 1999 Rules, but lost sight of fifth proviso.”

¶70

Thereafter, in respect of the petitioner herein, a similar endorsement has been issued on the very same ground. This Court in W.P.No.176/2023 disposed of on 23.02.2023 has quashed the endorsement on the very same ground. Therefore, now the respondents cannot reject the request of the petitioners by invoking proviso 2 to Rule 11(6) of 1999 Rules. In view of the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.No.32568/2019, decided on 08.10.2021 and W.P.No. 176/2021 decided on

¶71

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:22537 WP No. 1043 of 2022 C/W WP No. 16487 of 2025

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

23.02.2023, the impugned endorsement is liable to be quashed, reserving liberty to the petitioners to file representations enclosing the certified copy of this order, within a week from the date of the receipt of a certified copy of this order. If such representations are filed, the same shall be disposed of within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the representation, taking into consideration the earlier order passed by this Court.

¶74

Accordingly, the following order is passed:

¶75

(i) The writ petitions stand disposed of.

¶76

(ii) The order dated 26.06.2019 vide AnnexureAK and the endorsement dated 29.01.2025 vide Annexure-AR, respectively, are quashed.

¶77

(iii) Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file representations enclosing the certified copy of this order, within a week from the date of the receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶78

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:22537 WP No. 1043 of 2022 C/W WP No. 16487 of 2025

¶79

HC-KAR

¶80

(iv) If such representations are filed, within one

¶81

week from the date of receipt of the representation, the same shall be disposed of within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the representation, taking into consideration the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.32658/2019 and 176/2023.

¶82

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

¶83

CM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44

Sri H N Aruna Devi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri H N Aruna Devi 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

Manikanta M Vs Union Public Service Commission

Anand Chetter Vs Union Public Service Commission (Upsc)

Sri P Sannabasappa Vs Karnataka State Co-Operative

Sri Sanganabasayya Belavantarakanthi Vs the Commissioner

Sri.B. Hanumanthaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Deepak Gowda. N Vs the Manager