Laxmi Sagar Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA Digitally signed BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT by LUCYGRACE OF PRE - UNIVERSITY BOARD Location: High (PUC) AT M.S. BUILDING, Court Of Karnataka BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶13

RAJASHEKAR (H.R.HEAD) 3^RD FLOOR, NARAYAN E TECHNO SCHOOL NEAR BEML LAYOUT BUS STOP KUNDANHALLI GATE, ITPC ROAD, MARTHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 036.

¶14

NAGESHWAR RAO KURUPPA (DEAN) NARAYAN E TECHNO SCHOOL, NEAR BEML LAYOUT BUS STOP, KUNDANHALLI GATE, ITPC ROAD,

¶15

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1953 WP No. 202214 of 2021

¶16

MARTHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 036.

¶17

M. SURENDER REDDY (DGM SOUTH ZONE) NARAYAN E TECHNO SCHOOL, #53 BESIDE SAFA SUPER MARKET, 22^ND CROSS, 24^TH MAIN PARANAGI PALYA, HSR LAYOUT, SECTOR-2, BENGALURU – 560 002.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. MAQBOOL AHMED, AGA FOR R1; SMT. M. JHANSI RANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 08.07.2020 PASSED ON I.A. NO. 2 DATED FILED BY THE DEFENDANT NO.2 TO 4 IN E.A.T. NO. 3/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND EDUCATIONAL APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KALABURAGI, THE CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-K. AND ETC.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

(PER: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)

¶25

Heard Sri.Shriharsha R.Harwal, learned counsel for

¶26

the petitioner as well as Smt.M.Jhansi Rani learned counsel who is representing respondent Nos.2 to 4.

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1953 WP No. 202214 of 2021

¶28

This writ petition is filed seeking the Court to

¶29

issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order that is passed by the Educational Appellate Tribunal, Kalaburagi in I.A.No.II in EAT No.3/2014 dated 08.07.2020.

¶30

The writ petitioner files an appeal invoking Section 94 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) being aggrieved by the oral termination that was effected by respondent Nos.3 and 4. The version of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Junior HOD of Pre-University

¶31

College of Narayan E-Techno School, Bengaluru on 08.06.2013 and basing on his performance, he was promoted as Senior HOD. However, on 04.12.2013, he met with a road traffic accident at Bengaluru while he was proceeding to attend the school and thereby, he was confined to bed for a considerable period. After recovery, he approached the school authorities and requested to pay the salary due. But neither his salary was paid nor he was

¶32

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1953 WP No. 202214 of 2021

¶33

allowed to work. The writ petitioner thereby sought to set aside the oral termination that was effected and to direct the management to reinstate him with all consequential benefits including backwages. Pending proceedings initiated by the writ petitioner, respondents filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC seeking for rejection of appeal raising two grounds. Firstly, that the cause of action did not arise at Kalaburagi and therefore, the Tribunal at Kalaburagi had no jurisdiction and secondly, that the provisions of Chapter 14 of the Act are not applicable to a temporary employee of a private educational institution. The Tribunal having considered the merits of the case through order dated 08.07.2020 returned the appeal for presentation before the jurisdictional Tribunal. Aggrieved by the same, the writ petitioner is before this Court.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that

¶35

writ petitioner is permanent resident of Kalaburagi and further, he issued a legal notice from Kalaburagi and

¶36

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1953 WP No. 202214 of 2021

¶37

therefore, the Tribunal located at Kalaburagi will have jurisdiction to deal with the matter.

¶38

Per contra, Smt.M.Jhansi Rani, learned counsel who represents respondent Nos.2 to 4 submits that the educational institution where the petitioner worked is at Bengaluru and he rendered his services at Bengaluru only till he was terminated. Learned counsel also submits that no cause of action arose at Kalaburagi and thus, the Tribunal rightly returned the appeal for presentation before the proper Tribunal.

¶39

The collective submission made by

¶40

Sri.Shriharsha R.Harwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.M.Jhansi Rani, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 is that though the State Government is under obligation to specify the territorial jurisdiction of each Tribunal and no notification specifying territorial jurisdiction is issued till now.

¶41

Section 96 of the Act, reads as under:

¶42

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1953 WP No. 202214 of 2021

¶43

Section:96 “Tribunal - (1) The State Government shall, by notification in the official gazette constitute one or more Educational Appellate Tribunals for the adjudication of appeals preferred under this Act and where more than one Tribunal is constituted, the State Government shall specify the territorial jurisdiction of each such Tribunal.

¶44

(2) The Educational Appellate Tribunal shall consist of one person who is or has been a Judicial Officer not below the rank of a District Judge:

¶45

Provided that pending constitution of the Educational Appellate Tribunal under subsection (1), the District Judge of each District shall function as the Educational Appellate Tribunal of the District.

¶46

(3) The Educational Appellate Tribunal,-

¶47

(a) may, if satisfied from the material on

¶48

record that the order is arbitrary, perverse, malafide, violative of the rules of natural justice or not sustainable on any other ground, pass such orders including one for the reinstatement of the employee, as it deems fit on such terms and conditions, if any, including payment of salary allowances and costs;

¶49

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1953 WP No. 202214 of 2021

¶50

(b) shall for the purposes of the disposal of the appeals referred under this Act have the same powers as are vested in a court of appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act 5 of 1908); (c) shall have the power to stay the operation of the order appealed against on such terms as it may think fit;

¶51

(d) shall for the purpose of executing its own orders have the same powers as are vested in a court executing a decree of a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act 5 of 1908) as if such orders were decrees of a civil court.

¶52

(4) All expenses incurred in connection with the Tribunal shall be borne from out of the Consolidated Fund of the State.

¶53

(5) No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of matters over which the Tribunal exercises any power under this Act.”

¶54

As per the aforementioned provisions, after

¶55

constitution of one or more Educational Appellate Tribunals

¶56

for adjudication of appeals preferred under the Act, i.e.,

¶57

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1953 WP No. 202214 of 2021

¶58

Karnataka Education Act, 1983 and where more than one Tribunal is constituted, the obligation is on the part of the State Government to specify the territorial jurisdiction of each such Tribunal. However, by the submission that is made by both the learned counsels, it is clear that no such notification is issued till now.

¶59

Sections 15 to 20 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 deals with place of suit. Both the learned counsels refer to Sections 19 and 20 of Code of Civil Procedure. However, literally speaking, the proceedings that went on before the Tribunal were not based on a suit instituted, however, the general rule regarding jurisdiction is that the lis has to be dealt where the sole defendant or any of the defendants reside or where the cause of action wholly or partly arise.

¶60

Proviso to Section 96(2) makes it clear that pending constitution of Educational Appellate Tribunal under sub-section (1), the District Judge of each District

¶61

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1953 WP No. 202214 of 2021

¶62

shall function as the Educational Appellate Tribunal of the District.

¶63

In the case on hand, no cause of action arose at Kalaburagi. Having dealt with the merits of the matter at length regarding jurisdiction, the Tribunal rightly returned the appeal for presentation before the proper Tribunal. Therefore, this Court does not find any irregularity or illegality that is committed by the Educational Appellate Tribunal, Kalaburagi in returning the appeal. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the writ petition lacks merits.

¶64

Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶65

Time for three weeks is granted to the writ petitioner to present the appeal before the jurisdictional Tribunal.

¶66

Sd/(Dr.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE

¶67

VNR

¶68

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53 CT-NI

Laxmi Sagar v. the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxmi Sagar v. the State of Karnataka and Ors.

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

Divisional Controller Vs Mrs. Shyamala. B

Nimitha Y P Vs Bharathi

Syed Shah Nawaz Vs the Karnataka State Board of Auqaf and Anr.

Mallappa S/O Ayyanppabarakere Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Pradeep S/O Late Siddalingayya Swamy Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Yakbal Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.