Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka, vs Mallikarjun P E , on 18 February, 2021
Author: Alok Aradhe Rangaswamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY
W.A. NO.2556 OF 2012 (S-RES)
IN
W.P. NOs.11002-006 OF 2011 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR OF PRIMARY EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BANGALORE-560001.
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT
CHITRADURGA.
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT
CHIKKAMAGALUR.
... APPELLANTS
(BY MR. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA)
AND:
1. MALLIKARJUN P E
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O ERANNA
PRIMARY SCHOOL
KANNADA ASSISTANT MASTER.
2
2. MRUTHYUNJAYA
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O JOGANNA
PRIMARY SCHOOL
KANNADA ASSISTANT MASTER.
3. ANANDA REDDY .P
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O PAPANNA
PRIMARY SCHOOL
KANNADA ASSISTANT MASTER.
4. GANGADHARAPPA G
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O GANGANNA
PRIMARY SCHOOL
KANNADA ASSISTANT MASTER.
5. SAIDA ALUM
AGED 40 YEARS
D/O MOHAMMED SHABBIR
PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT MISTRESS
6. UMAKANTH M.S.
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
S/O M. SHIVANNA
ASSISTANT MASTER
CHINMAYA HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL
PARASHURAMPURA NAGAR
CHALLAKERE TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
7. KRISHNAMURTHY G.Y.
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
S/O YARRAPPA
ASSISTANT MASTER
CHINMAYA HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL
PARASHURAMPURA NAGAR
CHALLAKERE TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
8. RAJANNA D
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
S/O DODDA RANGAPPA
3
ASSISTANT MASTER
CHINMAYA HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL
VENKATESWARA NAGAR
CHALLAKERE TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
9. SHAKUNTHALAMMA T.B.
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
D/O BASAPPA
ASSISTANT MASTER
CHINMAYA HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL
MADAKARI NAGAR
CHALLAKERE TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
10. SADANANDA S
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
S/O SHESHACHARI A.B.
PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER
CHINMAYA HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL
VENKATESHWARA NAGAR
CHALLAKERE TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
11. H.N. MALLIKARJUNA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
S/O HOSAMANE JAYANNA
ASSISTANT MASTER
CHINMAYA HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL
CHALLAKERE TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
12. JAYANNA R
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
S/O RANGAPPA
ASSISTANT MASTER
CHINMAYA HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL
PARASHURAMA NAGAR
CHALLAKERE TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
13. PANDURANGAIAH G
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
S/O GIRIAPPA
ASSISTANT MASTER
4
CHINMAYA HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL
PARASHURAMA NAGAR
CHALLAKERE TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
14. RAMESHI R
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
S/O M. SHIVANNA
ASSISTANT MASTER
CHINMAYA HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL
VENKATESHWARA NAGAR
CHALLAKERE TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
15. KANTHARAJU R
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
S/O RANGAPPA
ASSISTANT MASTER
CHINMAYA HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL
CHOWLUR, CHALLAKERE TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. VIJAYA SIMHA REDDY D.V. ADV., FOR
MR. P. CHANGALARAYA REDDY, ADV., FOR
R2, R4 & R5
MR. SATEESH CHANDRA, ADV., FOR R6-R15)
---
THIS W.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN
THE WRIT PETITION NOS.11002-11006/2011 (S-RESPONDENT)
DATED 25.11.2011.
THIS W.A. COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
5
JUDGMENT
In this intra court appeal under Section 4 of the
Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 the appellant has
assailed the validity of the order dated 25.11.2011
passed by the learned Single Judge by which the learned
Single Judge has allowed the writ petition with a
direction to the appellants herein to implement the
government order dated 26.06.1999 and to extend all
consequential benefits to respondent Nos.2, 4 and 5.
2. At the outset, learned Additional Government
Advocate submitted that the appellants were not given
an opportunity to file their objections to the writ petition
and therefore, they were unable to raise a ground before
the learned Single Judge that the government order
dated 26.06.1999 in fact does not exist and the same
has bee fabricated by respondent Nos.1 to 5. On the
other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2, 4 and
5 supported the order passed by the learned Single
Judge.
3. We have considered the submissions made
by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the
record. Even though it has been recorded by the learned
Single Judge in para 4 of the order that the government
pleader has not chosen to file any statement of
objections, however, in view of the first ground itself
taken in the memo of appeal that the order dated
26.06.1999 has been forged by respondents in this
appeal, in the facts of the case, we deem it appropriate
to quash the order passed by the learned Single Judge
and to remit the matter to the learned Single Judge for
consideration afresh in accordance with law. Needless to
state that the appellants herein shall file statement of
objections within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of the certified copy of the order passed in the
writ petition. We request the learned Single Judge to
decide the matter afresh in accordance with law.
In the result, the appeal is allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SS
