1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA
WRIT APPEAL NO.2543 OF 2019 (S-PRO)
BETWEEN:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY TO GOVT.,
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION
VIDHANA SOUDHA
DR.AMBEDKAR ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR
COLLEGIATE EDUCATION
SESHADRI ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 001.
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF
COLLEGIATE EDUCATION
PALACE ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 001.
4. THE DIRECTOR OF
COLLEGIATE EDUCATION
SESHADRI ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
....APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.C.S.MAHADESHWARAN, AGA (PH))
2
AND:
1. SRI.NAGARAJ
S/O KARIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT
V.V.PURA ARTS AND COMMERCE
EVENING COLLEGE
K.R.ROAD
BENGALURU-560 004.
2. V.V.PURAM EVENING COLLEGE
(DEGREE) OF ARTS & COMMERCE
K.R.ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 004
REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL.
3. THE VOKKALIGARA SANGHA
EDUCATION TRUST
V.V.PURAM, K.R.ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 004
REP. BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SOMASHEKAR, ADV., FOR
SRI.S.N.MURTHY ASSOCIATES, ADV.
FOR R2 & R3 (VC);
NOTICE SERVED TO R1 VIDE ORDER
DATED04-01-2021)
---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4
OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO
ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 27.07.2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.NO.47180 /
2011.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL
HEARING, B.V.NAGARATHNA J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
3
JUDGMENT
We have perused the postal website tracking result which shows that the notice issued by this Court was delivered to the first respondent on 07-09-2020. Hence, office to show respondent No.1 as served in the cause-list.
2. The correctness of the order dated 27th July, 2017 passed in writ petition No.47180/2011 is questioned in this appeal by the State and other authorities.
3. Briefly stated the facts are, the first respondent(writ petitioner) was working as Second Division Clerk (SDC) in the second respondent Institution since the year 1980. He was promoted as First Division Clerk(FDC) as per the Resolution of the Executive Committee of the first respondent Institution dated 13-05-1989. Hence, from that date, he was discharging his duties as FDC. The respondent Institution was brought under the Grant-in-Aid scheme with effect from 28-08-1991. Grant-in-Aid salaries were extended to both teaching as well as non-teaching staff 4 of the respondent Institution. The grievance of the first respondent/writ petitioner was, while forwarding his name for the purpose of Grant-in-Aid to the State Government he was shown as SDC whereas in 1989 itself he was promoted as FDC. Therefore, he sought for correction of his designation. By order dated 01-03-2001 the State rejected his appeal(appeal 4/2004). Being aggrieved, the first respondent herein filed the writ petition. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order dated 27-07-2017 allowed the writ petition by quashing the order dated 17-03-2006(Annexure V) and also observed that the Government Order dated 01-03-2001 shall have effect prospectively. Being aggrieved, the State and other authorities have preferred this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and other authorities as also Sri Somashekar, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. We have perused the material on record.
5
5. The dispute in this matter is in a very narrow compass. It is not in dispute that the first respondent was appointed as SDC in the respondent Institution in the year 1980. According to the first respondent he was promoted as FDC under Resolution passed by the Executive Committee of the first respondent Institution on 13-05-1989. The respondent Institution was admitted to Grant-in-Aid on 28-08-1991. While forwarding the name of the first respondent for the purpose of extension of Grant-in-Aid salary to him his designation was shown as SDC whereas in 1989 itself he was promoted as FDC. Therefore, the first respondent sought correction of his designation, having regard to the promotion accorded to him on 13-05-1989. Inspite of making the said correction, the second appellant herein rejected the case of the first respondent herein. Hence, he preferred the writ petition before this Court. The learned Single Judge of this Court has allowed the said writ petition and set aside the impugned order dated 17-03-2006 by holding that since the first respondent herein was working as FDC with effect from 13-05-1989 he must be 6 accorded all benefits on account of the promotion given to him on the said date.
6. The learned Single Judge has also stated that the Government order dated 01-03-2001 applies only prospectively and the same shall not apply to the case of the first respondent. Infact, the said Government Order would have no relevance as such to this case. The first respondent herein only sought for correction of the date of his promotion in the records which has been rightly ordered by the Learned Single Judge.
7. We do not find any merit in the appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
No Costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE rsk/-