The State of Karnataka Vs Sri Srikanth

SRI MANJUNATHA S S/O PRABHUSWAMY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS WORKING CRAFT TEACHER SRI GANGADHARESHWARA HIGH SCHOOL, KOTTALAWADI CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK AND DISTRICT

¶64

NC: 2026:KHC:28666-DB WA No. 748 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 109 of 2024

¶65

5 -

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

SRI MAHADEVANAIKA

¶68

S/O DASANAIKA

¶69

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶70

WORKING CRAFT TEAHCER SRI GANGADHARESHWARA HIGH SCHOOL, ARALIKATTE,

¶71

CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT

¶72

...COMPLAINANTS

¶73

(BY SRI. PADMANABHA R., ADVOCATE)

¶74

AND:

¶75

SRI. RITHESH KUMAR SINGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPT. OF SCHOOL EDUCATION AND LITERACY M S BUILDING

¶76

BANGALORE 560001

¶77

SMT CAUVERY B B COMMISSIONER FOR PUBLIC INSTURUCTIONS NRUPATHUNGA ROAD

¶78

BANGALORE 560001

¶79

SRI KRISHNAJI S KARICHANNAVARA THE DIRECTOR FOR PUBLIC INSTURCTIONS SCONDARY EDUCATION OFFICE AT COMMISSIONER FOR PUBLIC INSTURCIONS NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE 560001

¶80

RAMACHANDRARAJE URS

¶81

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTURCITONS

¶82

CHAMAJANAGARA DISTRICT

¶83

CHARAMARAJANGARA 571313

¶84

6 -

¶85

NC: 2026:KHC:28666-DB WA No. 748 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 109 of 2024

¶86

HC-KAR

¶87

DR P C JAFFER THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU 560001

¶88

...ACCUSED

¶89

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPT OF HIGH SCHOOL EDUCATION AND LITERACY M S BUILDING, BANGALORE 560001

¶90

...PROFORMA RESPONDENT

¶91

(BY SRI. VIKASH ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R6; A1 TO A5 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶92

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, R/W ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR HAVING DELIBERATELY AND WILLFULLY DISOBEYED THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS COURT IN W.P.NO.21310/2016 DATED 23.08.2023 AS PER ANNEXURE - C AND TO PUNISH THE ACCUSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW BY ALLOWING THIS CONTEMPT PETITION WITH EXEMPLARY COSTS AND TO PASS APPROPRIATE AND SUITABLE ORDERS.

¶93

THIS APPEAL AND CCC, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶94

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶95

7 -

¶96

NC: 2026:KHC:28666-DB WA No. 748 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 109 of 2024

¶97

HC-KAR

¶98

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶99

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

¶100

This writ appeal is filed as against the Order dated 23.08.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.21310/2016(S-RES).

¶101

We have heard the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellant as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶102

The writ petition which had been filed challenging Annexures 'D', 'E', 'F' and 'G' insofar as it relates to the writ petitioner as well as challenging the conditions in the Government Order dated 11.10.2012 was allowed and condition No.3 in Annexures 'D' and 'G' and condition No.2 in Annexures - 'E' and 'F' in the orders of approval for grant-in-aid in respect of the writ petitioners refusing salary grant, were quashed.

¶103

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellants would submit that the learned Single Judge has only considered the fact that the post of craft teachers was included in the staff pattern of the school. However, the question whether all the craft teachers appointed in the schools in question were liable

¶104

8 -

¶105

NC: 2026:KHC:28666-DB WA No. 748 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 109 of 2024

¶106

HC-KAR

¶107

to be admitted to grant-in-aid, had not been considered by the learned Single Judge.

¶108

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would, on the other hand, contend that the only reason for imposition of the condition was that the Rules did not permit the approval or the payment of salary to craft, drawing or music teachers for the period in question.

¶109

The learned Single Judge had specifically found that the Rules had been amended in the year 2007, permitting a craft teacher to be recruited and it was thereafter that the writ petitioners had been recruited. Further, it was found that in the Rules amended in the year 2016, Note 3 of the amendment specifically provided that the craft teacher existing as on the date of commencement of these amendment rules would be eligible to continue.

¶110

A co-equal Bench of this Court by its judgment dated 10.02.2025 passed in WA No.100053/2025 (S-RES) has considered an identical question and has held as follows:-

¶111

"2. The writ Court in the light of these admitted facts has opined that the appellants have refused the grant-in-aid to the first respondent without noticing the amendment vide notification dated 06.06.2017. Sri. G.K. Hiregoudar, the learned Government Advocate for the appellants, proposes to canvas that the combined reading of the notification dated

¶112

9 -

¶113

NC: 2026:KHC:28666-DB WA No. 748 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 109 of 2024

¶114

HC-KAR

¶115

16.06.2007 and 09.06.2016 will be that only those teachers who were on the rolls of an institution which is admitted to grant-in-aid prior to 16.06.2007 will be entitled for grant-in-aid.

¶116

3. This Court is not persuaded to accept the submission because the amendment vide the notification dated 16.06.2007 has introduced staff in pattern permitting the appointment of a teacher in either Drawing, or Music or Craft for grant-in-aid and this is continued until 09.06.2016 when the schedule is amended to read that the post of a teacher for Drawing or Craft or Music shall be only so long as the incumbent occupies the post and that shall cease once the incumbent vacates the post. While stipulating this, the amendment also admits grant-in-aid to those who were appointed prior to 02.02.2000 in the aided institutions."

¶117

Having considered the contentions advanced and in the light of the pleading and the materials on record, we find no reason to depart from the judgment of the co-equal Bench of this Court. We are of the opinion that since the Rules as amended in the year 2007 enable the Institution to have craft teachers and since the writ petitioners had been appointed thereafter, they are entitled to the benefit of Note: 3 of the Rules as well.

¶118

In the above view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the matter stands squarely covered by the judgment of the co-equal Bench of this Court passed in WA No.100053/2025.

¶119

10 -

¶120

NC: 2026:KHC:28666-DB WA No. 748 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 109 of 2024

¶121

HC-KAR

¶122

In the result:-

¶123

1. The Writ Appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed .

¶124

1. The Contempt of Court case is closed , and the Government is granted eight weeks further time to comply with the directions contained in the judgment.

¶125

1. In case, the directions are not complied with, it will be open to the complainants to reopen the Contempt of Court case.

¶126

All pending interlocutory applications shall stand disposed of.

¶127

Sd/(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

¶128

Sd/(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE

¶129

RAK List No.: 3 Sl No.: 4

The State of Karnataka v. Sri Srikanth

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Karnataka v. Sri Srikanth

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

Sri G Lakshminarasimha Vs Sri G. Hemanna

M/S Vng Developers Vs Sri Chidura Laxma Reddy

Savithri R Vs Anil Kumar S

M G Ranganatha Rao Vs Smt Saroja v Krishna

Sri. Srikanth Vs Sri. Rithesh Kumar Singh

National Highways Authority of India Vs Sri. Chandrashekar B Mada