Sri Shekaraiah Vs State of Karnataka

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS VIDE ANN-M1 DATED 23.1.2012 AND CONTINUE THE PETITIONER AS A PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER AND PAY THE SALARY OF THE PETITIONER AND ARREARS OF SALARY, CONTINUITY OF SERVICE IN VIEW OF THE LAW LAY-DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF STATE OF U.P. V/S PAVAN KUMAR THRIVEDI AND OTHERS.

¶28

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

¶29

Page No.2 is retyped and replaced vide Court order dated 27.02.2026

¶30

3 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:42043 WP No. 31319 of 2015

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶34

ORAL ORDER

¶35

The petitioner filed this petition seeking following prayers:

¶36

"(i) Issue a writ of order or direction or mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representations Annexure M1 dated 23-1-2012 and continue the petitioner as a Physical Education Teacher and pay the salary of the petitioner and arrears of salary, continuity of service in view of the law lay-down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P V/s Pavan Kumar Thrivedi and others.

¶37

(ii) Issue writ of order, certiorari quash the order Annexure-N4 dated 23-3-2007 bearing No.O.M.No.Anu.1.Pra.Shi.A.Ethare.66/05-06 passed by the 4th respondent and continue the petitioner as a teacher with back wages and consequential benefits.

¶38

(iii) Grant such other reliefs as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court, in the interest of justice."

¶39

2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this

¶40

petition are as follows:

¶41

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:42043 WP No. 31319 of 2015

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

2.1. The petitioner was appointed as a Physical

¶44

Education Teacher by Srinivasa Education Trust on 20.10.1987. The school was admitted grant-in-aid as per the order dated 16.11.1992. The petitioner was admitted to grant-in-aid as per the order dated 16.11.1992. Respondents No.5 and 6 have not paid a salary from February 1994. The petitioner and similarly situated employees/staff have filed a petition in WP No.2147899/1994 before this Court. This Court, vide order dated 19.12.1994, granted an interim order directing the management to consider the payment of the arrears of salary to the petitioners from April 1994 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the interim order. Respondent No.4 has passed an order on 20.09.1995. The petitioner had challenged the said order before this court in WP No.1648/1996 and connected matters. This Court, vide order dated 06.09.1996, allowed the writ petition and set aside the Government order dated

¶45

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:42043 WP No. 31319 of 2015

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

20.09.1995 and directed the State to reconsider the order

¶48

in the light of the observation made in the order passed in WP No.6337/1996 and connected matters and directed to pay the salary to the petitioners. Pursuant to the order passed in WP No.6337/1996 vide Annexure-E, the respondents-State have not complied the order. It appears, during March, respondent No.3 has passed an order by putting anti-date as 31.01.1997 stating that the petitioner was not entitled to the grant from the Government. The Deputy Director of Public Instructions ('DDPI' for short) has no power to modify the order passed by the Secretary, Department of Education, State of Karnataka. The order passed by the DDPI is wholly without jurisdiction, and virtually sitting over the order of his appointing authority. The State Government passed an order granting permission for making first standard to seventh standard. In the said order, it was clearly mentioned that, one Physical Education Teacher has to be appointed, and provided for the appointment of Hindi

¶49

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:42043 WP No. 31319 of 2015

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

Teacher. The DDPI also passed an order on 31.03.2002, and also passed an order on 09.08.2002 and continued the petitioner as a Physical Education Teacher Grade-II and his salary was released from 01.02.1997 to 31.03.2002. The respondents have withheld the salary of the petitioner as an excess teacher. The petitioner filed a writ petition in WP No.7279/2007. This Court, vide order dated 09.11.2011, disposed of the aforesaid writ petition and directed DDPI to consider the representations. The petitioner submitted representations vide Annexures-M and M1 requesting for reinstatement. Respondent No.4, vide order dated 03.03.2001, has clearly stated that, there is no excess Teacher, and the petitioner and others were within the staff pattern. The Block Education Officer ('BEO' for short) directed the Headmaster to prepare the salary bill of the petitioner and others for 2006. The BEO inspected the school and made a report that the petitioner's appointment was in accordance with law. Again, respondent No.1 withheld the salary of the

¶52

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:42043 WP No. 31319 of 2015

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

petitioner along with one Mallikarjuna Swamy and others. Mallikarjuna Swamy had filed a writ petition in WP No.2860/2008 before this Court. The said writ petition came to be allowed by selling aside the order dated 23.03.2007. Respondent No.4 issued a show-cause notice dated 17.11.2006 stating that why the salary should not be cancelled under Section 53 of the Act vide Annexure-N2. The petitioner replied to the show-cause notice on 17.12.2006 vide Annexure-N3. Respondent No.4, without holding any enquiry, passed an order on 23.03.2007 stating that the grant made to the petitioner by Education Secretary, State of Karnataka was withdrawn. The petitioner, aggrieved by the order dated 23.03.2007, filed this writ petition.

¶55

Despite granting sufficient opportunity, the respondents have not filed a statement of objections.

¶56

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:42043 WP No. 31319 of 2015

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the

¶59

petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents No.1, 2, 4 and 5.

¶60

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the impugned order passed by respondent No.4 violates the principle of natural justice. He submits that, before passing the impugned order, no enquiry was conducted and he submits that similarly situated employee, aggrieved by the impugned order dated 23.03.2007 passed by respondent No.4, filed a writ petition in WP No.40152/2014. This Court, vide order dated 14.06.2023, set aside the impugned order vide Annexure-N4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the order passed in the WP No.40152/2014. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.

¶61

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:42043 WP No. 31319 of 2015

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

Per contra, learned Additional Government

¶64

Advocate supports the impugned order, and accordingly, prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶65

Perused the records and considered the

¶66

submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶67

There is no dispute that the petitioner was appointed as a Physical Education Teacher by Srinivasa Education Trust on 20.10.1987. The appointment of the petitioner was admitted to grant-in-aid as per the order dated 16.11.1992 vide Annexure-B. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner was given a salary. Respondents No.5 and 6 did not pay the salary from February 1994. The petitioner and others filed a writ petition in WP No.21748-99/1994 before this Court. This Court granted an interim order and directed the State to consider the representation and disburse the salary of the petitioner. Respondent No.4 has passed an order on 20.09.1995. The said order was challenged before this Court in WP

¶68

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:42043 WP No. 31319 of 2015

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

No.1648/1996 and connected matters. This Court set

¶71

aside the order dated 20.09.1995 passed by the Government, and directed the Government to reconsider the order in the light of the observation made in the order passed in WP No.1648/1996 and connected matters and directed the State to pay the salary to the petitioners. Respondent No.4 issued a show-cause notice on 17.11.2006 as per Annexure-N2 stating that why the salary should not be cancelled under Section 53 of the Act. The petitioner submitted a reply to the show-cause notice on 17.12.2006 vide Annexure-N3. Respondent No.4, without considering the relevant materials produced by the petitioner and without holding any enquiry, passed an order on 23.03.2007 vide Annexure-N4 stating that the grant made to the petitioner by Education Secretary, State of Karnataka is withdrawn. The similarly situated employees, aggrieved by the same order, preferred a writ petition in WP No.40152/2014. This Court, vide order dated 14.06.2023, allowed the writ petition and set aside

¶72

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:42043 WP No. 31319 of 2015

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

the order dated 23.03.2007. Admittedly, respondent No.4, before passing an impugned order, did not consider that the petitioner was appointed, and his appointment was admitted to grant-in-aid in 1992 and before passing an impugned order, no opportunity of personal hearing was provided to the petitioner. The order passed by respondent No.4 is violates of principle of natural justice and further, similarly placed petitioners approach this court in WP No.40152/2014. The same order dated 23.03.2007 was

¶75

set aside by this Court. In view of the above discussion, I am of the view that the impugned order dated 23.03.2007 is liable to be quashed.

¶76