Dismissed¶40

Chandrashekhar M. v. the Commissioner of Public Instructions

Karnataka HC4 Feb 2025WP/3793/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintainability of writ petition against internal departmental communication/clarification; absence of cause of action where promotion case not rejected; B.P.Ed/C.P.Ed qualifications; degrees of Bharathiya Shiksha Parishad, Lucknow (Uttar Pradesh); University Grants Commission recognition and list of unrecognized institutions (Annexure-R3); promotion from Physical Education Teacher Grade-II to Grade-I; government-aided school employee; Dakshina Kannada/Sulia; Karnataka High Court, single judge, order dated 04.02.2025; petition under Articles 226 and 227 rejected/dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Annexure-D, the document under challenge, is merely an internal communication from the second respondent to the third respondent, and there is no cause of action for the petitioner to challenge it. ¶36

Chandrashekhar M. Vs the Commissioner of Public… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner has a cause of action to challenge, by way of a writ petition under Articles 226/227, the internal communication dated 25.08.2012 (Annexure-D) stating that B.P.Ed/M.P.Ed degrees from Bharathiya Shiksha Parishad, Lucknow could not be considered for benefits, when his promotion case has not been rejected on that ground.

¶36

Court's answer

Annexure-D, the document under challenge, is merely an internal communication from the second respondent to the third respondent, and there is no cause of action for the petitioner to challenge it.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner's case for promotion has not been rejected on the ground stated in the clarification, so the clarification cannot be challenged by him.

¶36

Key takeaways

The impugned clarification was issued based on a clarification obtained from the University Grants Commission, and Annexure-R3 enlists institutions which are not recognized by the University Grants Commission.ratio¶39
In the light of the above, there is no merit in the writ petition and it stands rejected.ratio¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (S.G. Pandit, J.), WP No. 3793 of 2013 (S-RES), order dated 04-02-2025: A Physical Education Teacher Grade-II of an aided high school challenged, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, an internal communication dated 25.8.2012 (Annexure-D) from the Director of Public Instructions (R2) to the Deputy Director (R3) stating that B.P.Ed and M.P.Ed degree certificates obtained from Bharathiya Shiksha Parishad, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh could not be considered for extending benefits, the petitioner claiming entitlement to promotion to Physical Education Teacher Grade-I on acquiring B.P.Ed. Holding: the impugned document being an internal communication, and the petitioner's promotion case not having been rejected on its basis, there is no cause of action to challenge it; moreover, it merely reflected a clarification from the University Grants Commission (with Annexure-R3 enlisting institutions not recognized by the UGC). Writ petition found without merit and rejected.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:5078 WP No. 3793 of 2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 3793 OF 2013 (S-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

CHANDRASHEKHAR M. S/O SUBRAYA GOWDA M., AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER GRADE-II, CHOKKADI HIGH SCHOOL (GOVT. AIDED), KUKKUJADAKA POST, SULIA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574216.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. VENKAT SATYANARAYAN A., ADV.)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS IN KARNATAKA, NEW PUBLIC OFFICES, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.

¶15

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS IN KARNATAKA O/O THE COMMISSIONER, NEW PUBLIC OFFICES, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.

¶16

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT, DAKSHINA KANNADA-574216.

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5078 WP No. 3793 of 2013

¶18

THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, SULIA TALUK, SULIA, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574216.

¶19

THE MANAGEMENT CHOKKADI HIGH SCHOOL (GOVT. AIDED), KUKKUJADAKA POST, SULLIA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574216.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT. PRATHIBHA R.K., AGA FOR R1 TO R4 R5 IS SERVED)

¶22

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 25.8.2012 PASSED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 4 TO CONSIDER THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER FOR PROMOTION TO THE POST OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER, GRADE-I. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

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

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The petitioner, a Physical Education Teacher Grade-II

¶26

of 5^th respondent-Chikkodi High School is before this

¶27

Court, challenging Annexure-D dated 25.08.2012 internal communication from second respondent to the 3^rd respondent wherein it is communicated that B.P.Ed and M.P.Ed. degree certificates obtained from Bharathiya

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5078 WP No. 3793 of 2013

¶29

Shiksha Parishad, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh could not be considered for extending any benefits.

¶30

Heard Smt.Prathibha, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Perused the writ petition papers.

¶31

The petitioner is working as Physical Education Teacher Grade-II in the 5^th respondent-Institution. He was appointed as Physical Education Teacher Grade-II on his qualification C.P.Ed. Thereafter, the petitioner appears to have acquired B.P.Ed. Degree from Bharathiya Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh. It is stated in the writ petition that Physical Education Teachers Grade-II are entitled to promotion to the cadre of Physical Education Teacher Grade-I on acquiring B.P.Ed. degree. It is further stated that the petitioner would be entitled for promotion on acquiring B.P.Ed. degree. Therefore, the clarification Annexure-D would affect his service condition.

¶32

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:5078 WP No. 3793 of 2013

¶34

Learned Additional Government Advocate

¶35

Smt.Prathibha G.K. referring to the statement of objections filed on behalf of the State Government would submit that there is no cause of action to challenge the said internal communication between respondent Nos.2 and 3 and further submits that on obtaining clarification from University Grants Commission, the said clarification is issued stating that Bharathiya Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh is not a recognized under the University Grants Commission.

¶36

Annexure-D which is under challenge is internal communication from the second respondent to third respondent. There is no cause of action for the petitioner to challenge the said clarification. The petitioner’s case for promotion is not rejected on the said ground so as to challenge the said clarification. Moreover, the said clarification is issued based on the clarification obtained from University Grants Commission in terms of

¶37

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:5078 WP No. 3793 of 2013

¶39

Annexure-R3. Annexure-R3 enlists the Institutions which are not recognized by the University Grants Commission.

¶40