Sri.R Rangadhamaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

THE NATIONAL AND RURAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION ®, M.G. ROAD, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, GOWRIBIDANUR-561208, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT. REPT. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. H.K.KENCHEGOWDA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:15860 WP No. 7784 of 2025

¶19

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE / ORDER DATED 11.03.2025 ISSUED BY THE 3^RD RESPONDENT VIDE ITS NO. 117/2024-25 WHICH ARE PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The petitioner has called in question a letter bearing No.117/2024-25 dated 11.03.2025 issued by the respondent No.3 directing the petitioner to handover charge of the post of Vice Principal and continue as an Assistant Teacher at the respondent No.3.

¶24

(i) The petitioner contends that certain allegations were made against him which resulted in a complaint against him before the Manchenahalli police station. The petitioner who was the 2^nd senior most teacher eligible to be promoted to the post of Principal/Vice Principal, was refused the benefit, which compelled him to approach this Court in W.P.No.20749/2021. The writ petition was allowed and the

¶25

respondent No.3 was directed to fill up the post of Principal/Vice Principal in terms of the Karnataka Educational

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15860 WP No. 7784 of 2025

¶27

Institutions (Recruitment and Terms and Conditions of Service of Employees in Private Aided Primary and Secondary Educational Institutions) Rules, 1999 (for short 'Rules, 1999').

¶28

(ii) The petitioner contends that the petitioner was thereafter appointed as a Vice Principal. In the meanwhile, the enquiry against the petitioner was held and the respondent No.3 directed the petitioner to handover the charge of post of Vice Principal and to continue as the Assistant teacher at the respondent No.3.

¶29

Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶30

When the learned counsel for the petitioner was informed that there was a remedy of a revision before the Director under Section 130 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order is passed violating the fundamental rights of the petitioner and without affording an opportunity to him to represent against the impugned order. He also contends that even while the enquiry was pending, the respondent No.3 has called upon the petitioner to handover charge of the post of

¶31

4 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:15860 WP No. 7784 of 2025

¶33

Vice Principal and therefore, the respondent No.3 has acted in violation of Rules, 1999.

¶34

If the petitioner is aggrieved by any order passed by the respondent No.3, he is bound to approach the competent authority as prescribed under Section 130 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983. A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be entertained in a routine manner, unless the petitioner is able to establish that the remedy of a revision before the Director, under Section 130 of the Karnataka Education Act, is not effective or is illusory. No reason is mentioned in the writ petition to establish that the relief before the Director of Collegiate Education is ineffective or not efficacious.

¶35

In that view of the matter, the writ petition is not maintainable in view of the alternative remedy available under Section 130 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed .

¶36

The office is directed to return the impugned order to the learned counsel for the petitioner after retaining a photocopy.

¶37

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15860 WP No. 7784 of 2025

¶38

The petitioner is granted liberty to file an

¶39

appropriate revision before the authority under Section 130 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983. The time consumed in pursuing this petition shall be deducted while calculating limitation for filing a revision before the authority.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶42

HJ

¶43

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22

Sri.R Rangadhamaiah v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.R Rangadhamaiah 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.K. Kavitha Vs the Deputy Secretary to the GOVERNMENT-2

Mr Pardeep Singh Vs Union of India

Smt. K N Manjula Vs the Karnataka State Co-Operative Apex Bank Ltd.

G.M.Ramakrishna Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr Surendra Pal Vs Union of India

Sri B Somesh Bairy Vs the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board