Sri. Mahesha. H. S. Vs the State of Karnataka

SRI. MAHESHA H. S. S/O. SUNDARA H. H., AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, WORKING AS A SCIENCE TEACHER, MORARJI DESAI RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL (205), BASAVANAHALLI, SOMAVARAPETE TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT, PIN CODE – 571 232.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. V. LAKSHMINARAYANA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR, SMT. SHILPA RANI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶15

THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/SECRETARY KARNATAKA RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS SOCIETY, CO-OPERATIVE BOARD BUILDING, 6^TH AND 7^TH FLOOR, NEAR CHANDRIKA HOTEL, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶16

THE PRINCIPAL AGED MAJOR, MORARJI DESAI RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL, BASAVANAHALLI, SOMVARAPETE TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT – 571 232.

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:13048 WP No. 8659 of 2024

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

DEPUTY DIRECTOR, AGED MAJOR, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, KODAGU DISTRICT – 571 232.

¶21

THE SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF CHATTISGARH, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, CHATTISGARH PRIVATE UNIVERSITIES, REGULATORY COMMISSION, BLOCK – 7B, GROUND FLOOR, OFFICE CAMPUS, SECTOR – 24, NAVA RAIPUR, ATAL NAGAR (C.G.) – 492 109.

¶22

UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, SOUTH WESTER REGION, P.K. BLOCK, PALACE ROAD, GANDHINAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 009 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. G. RAMESH NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3; SRI. H. R. SHOWRI, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R6; VIDE ORDER DATED 20.08.2024, NOTICE TO R5 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶25

THE W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 17.02.2024 IN NO KRIES/OTSW/OSCI/1/2023-ADMN/58954 ISSUED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT A COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-G AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO ISSUE HIM APPOINTMENT ORDER DISPENSING VERIFICATION OF MARKS CARDS RELATING TO BED AS SPECIAL CASE BY CONSIDERING HIS REPRESENTATION DATED 24.01.2024 A COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-H TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2026:KHC:13048 WP No. 8659 of 2024

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

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

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

¶33

“(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or direction quashing the endorsement dated 17.2.2024 in No.KRIES/OTSW/OSCI/1/2023-ADMN/58954 issued by the 2^nd respondent a copy of which is produced at Annexure-G and direct the respondents to issue him appointment order dispensing verification of marks cards relating to B.ed., as a special case, by considering his representation dated 24.1.2024 a copy of which is produced at Annexure-H, to meet the ends of justice.

¶34

(ii) GRANT such other order or direction as deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶35

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA

¶36

for respondent No.1, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 6 and perused the material on record.

¶37

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner got appointed as a Science Teacher in Morarji Desai

¶38

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:13048 WP No. 8659 of 2024

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

Residential School, Kodagu District, in the year 2009 on contract basis and in 2011, the petitioner appeared in the examination conducted by the Karnataka State Residential Educational Institutions Society (KREIS) and having successfully passed the said examination, the final selection list of 32 candidates dated 11.12.2019 issued by the KREIS showed the petitioner at Sl.No.2 subject to verification of testimonials and caste certificate, which was approved in favour of the petitioner on 26.11.2020. On 03.02.2023, the Executive Director of the KREIS addressed a communication to the Chhattisgarh Private Universities Regulatory Commission to provide available information regarding existence of University of Technology & Science, Raipur in the state of Chhattisgarh during the academic year 2003-04, to which the said Commission issued a reply dated 20.02.2003 to the effect that in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of

¶41

Professor Yashpal and Another v. State of Chhattisgarh and others – (2005) 5 SCC 420 , the said University established under the Chhattisgarh Niji Kshetra Vishwavidyalaya (Stapana aur Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 2002, which was held ultra vires, does not exist any longer, thereby indicating that the said University in which

¶42

5 -

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:13048 WP No. 8659 of 2024

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

the petitioner studied was declared as non-est was held to be unconstitutional. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 24.01.2024, to which respondent No.2 called upon it to issue the regular appointment order in favour of the petitioner, to which the respondent No.2 issued the impugned endorsement, deleting the name of the petitioner from the final selection list, on the ground that his BA marks were not certified, because of the University being invalidated by the Apex Court in Professor Yashpal's case referred to supra, aggrieved by the impugned endorsement, the petitioner is before this court by way of the present petition.

¶46

4. In the case of Priyanka Kumari and others v. State

¶47

of Bihar and others – (2026) SCC OnLine SC 249, the Apex Court considered its earlier judgment in Professor Yashpal’s case (supra), and came to the conclusion that the students who were studying in the said university and had passed out and obtained a degree from the said university should not be deprived of the benefits of such studies and held as under:

¶48

“16. What is evident from the facts of the case is that the University from which the appellants had studied had

¶49

6 -

¶50

NC: 2026:KHC:13048 WP No. 8659 of 2024

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

been set up under the 2002 Act enacted by the Chhattisgarh State Legislature. The aforesaid Act was declared to be ultra vires by this Court vide order dated 11.02.2005. Till such time, the students had been studying and passing out. At the time of declaration of the said Act to be ultra vires, this Court had protected the students who were still studying. They were directed to be transferred to alternative institutions recognized by the State. Considering the aforesaid fact and also that in the factual situation in hand, the appellants cannot be said to be at fault as they had studied in the University, which has been set up under the 2002 Act enacted by the State Legislature. Hence, they should not be deprived of the benefits of the degree obtained by them while studying in the University. It is not the case of the State that the University in which the appellants studied was bogus or no study was actually imparted.

¶53

17. While recording the aforesaid findings, the next question would be about the relief to which the appellants are entitled to. From the facts on record, it is evident that the services of the appellants were terminated only for the reason that the institution in which they had studied was declared to be unrecognised. Accordingly, the orders vide which the services of the appellants were terminated have to be declared as illegal. Ordered accordingly.

¶54

18. As a consequence, the impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside. The Writ Petition filed by the appellants before the High Court is allowed. They are directed to be reinstated back in service, with continuity.

¶55

7 -

¶56

NC: 2026:KHC:13048 WP No. 8659 of 2024

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

However, considering the fact that they have not performed their duties for the intervening period, and it cannot be said to be a case where only the respondent-State is at fault, in our view, they should not be entitled to any back wages.”

¶59

In the instant case also, it is an undisputed fact that the

¶60

petitioner having studied in the aforesaid university would be entitled to claim regular appointment, which was already granted in his favour in the year 2019, together with all consequential benefits, as permissible in law and in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Priyanka Kumari referred to supra.

¶61

In the result, I pass the following:

¶62

ORDER

¶63

(i) The petition is hereby allowed .

¶64

(ii) The impugned endorsement dated 17.02.2024

¶65

issued by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-G is hereby quashed.

¶66

(iii) The respondent No.2 is directed to issue a regular appointment in favour of the petitioner, in pursuance of the notification at Annexure-C dated 11.12.2019, in accordance with law, together with all consequential benefits, in terms of judgment of the

¶67