Karnataka High Court
Smt Nalina vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 January, 2021
Author: M.Nagaprasannapresided Bymnpj
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.53820/2018 (S - RES)
BETWEEN
SMT.NALINA
W/O Y.D.SHIVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/A KOTTEBETTA ROAD,
OPPOSITE ITI COLLEGE,
T.B.EXTENSION,
NAGAMANGALA TOWN - 571 432
MANDYA DISTRICT.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHASHIDHARA H.N., ADVOCATE (VIDEO CONFERENCING))
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR HIGHER EDUCATION
PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001
2
3. VISHWESHWARAIAH RURAL HIGH SCHOOL
G.BOMMNAHALLI,
NAGAMANGALA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT,
NAGAMANGALA - 571 441.
REP. BY HEAD MASTER.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.A.R.SHARADAMBA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2;
R3 SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
R-1 TO INCLUDE THE PETITIONER INTO THE GRANT-IN-AID WITH
EFFECT FROM 20.11.2018, VIDE ANNEXURE-E, TO THE WRIT
PETITION.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner in this writ petition has sought for a
direction to include her name in the list of teachers who were
admitted to grant-in-aid by order dated 20.11.2018 by
issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus.
2. Heard Sri.Shashidhara.H.N., learned counsel
appearing for petitioner and Smt.A.R.Sharadamba, learned
Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent
Nos.1 and 2.
3. Brief facts of the case leading to filing of the writ
petition are that:
Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Social
Science (Arts) in the third respondent-Institution
Visveswaraiah Rural High School (hereinafter referred to as
'the Institution' for short) with effect from 01.07.2000. On
completion of more than 15 years of service, the school
recommended the name of petitioner along with others to be
admitted to grant-in-aid in the Institution. In terms of the
recommendation made by the Institution, an order came to be
passed on 27.04.2018 admitting all the teachers who were
recommended for admission to grant-in-aid by the Institution
except the petitioner. The reason for exclusion of the
petitioner from admission to grant-in-aid was, a writ petition
that was pending consideration before this Court in
W.P.No.14414/2016 filed by one Nagaraju.S.
4. One Nagaraju.S who claimed to be appointed by the
third respondent-Institution and terminated approached the
Education Appellate Tribunal in EAT No.1/2012 challenging the
order of termination. The Education Appellate Tribunal after
considering the matter at great length rejected the claim of
Nagaraju.S on the ground, inter alia, that the third respondent
had never appointed him. The said Nagaraju.S challenged the
finding of the Tribunal before this Court in
W.P.No.14414/2016.
5. Though that could never have been the reason for the
Government to withhold the admission of the petitioner for
grant-in-aid as the Education Appellate Tribunal had not
passed any order in favour of Nagaraju.S directing his
reinstatement to the post that he was holding prior to
termination, nevertheless, the State in its wisdom had
excluded the petitioner from admission to grant-in-aid while
admitting other lecturers of the institution to grant-in-aid
solely on the ground that the writ petition filed by Nagaraju.S
who claimed that he was earlier working as a teacher in the
institution was pending consideration before this Court.
6. This Court by order dated 16.04.2019 had passed a
detailed interim order while directing W.P.No.14414/2016 to
be tagged along with the present writ petition. The order
passed by this Court on 16.04.2019 reads as follows:
" ORDER ON I.A.NO.1/2019 IN
W.P.NO.53820/2018
I.A.No.1/2019 has been filed by the
petitioner in W.P.No.53820/2018 seeking a
direction to the respondents to extend grant-in-
aid to the petitioner from 20.11.2018 i.e., the
date on which the grant-in-aid was extended to
the other Teachers of the third respondent-
Institution.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner draws the
attention of this Court to paragraph-5 of Annexure
'E', which is the order by which, the grant-in-aid
was extended to the other Teachers of the third
respondent-institution. It is stated at paragraph-5
that the case of the petitioner could not be
considered in view of the pendency of
W.P.No.14414/2016, which was filed by Sri
S.Nagaraju, who was also an Assistant Teacher in
Social Science subject. It has been stated in the
said paragraph that the extension of grant-in-aid
to the petitioner in W.P.No.53820/2018 shall be
considered after disposal of W.P.No.14414/2016.
Learned Counsel has pointed out that the
petitioner herein was appointed on 01.07.2000,
while petitioner in W.P.No.14414/2016 was
appointed on 01.06.2004, as observed in the
judgment of the Education Appellate tribunal in
EAT No.1/2012. The learned Counsel, therefore,
submits that pending final consideration of these
petitions, a direction may be issued to
respondents No.1 and 2 to extend the grant-in-aid
to the petitioner which may be subject to the final
outcome of these writ petitions.
In view of the above submissions, this Court
deems it fit to direct respondents No.1 and 2 to
extend grant-in-aid to the petitioner in
W.P.No.53820/2018, having regard to the fact
that the authorities have already recommended
the case of the petitioner. However, it is made
clear that the extension of grant-in-aid facility to
the petitioner shall be subject to the final outcome
of this writ petition and W.P.No.14414/2016.
I.A.No.1/2019 stands disposed of."
7. W.P.No.14414/2016 is dismissed by this Court by an
order dated 22.12.2020. The only impediment for admission
of the petitioner to grant-in-aid was pendency of
W.P.No.14414/2016. That having been cleared by dismissal of
the said writ petition by an order dated 22.12.2020, this writ
petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed.
8. A direction is issued to the first respondent-State
Government to include the name of petitioner admitting her to
grant-in-aid as is made in the case of others in terms of the
order dated 20.11.2018 and with effect from the said date and
extend all consequential benefits that would flow from the
order admitting the petitioner to grant-in-aid with effect from
20.11.2018. The order shall be complied with by the State
within three months from the date of receipt of copy of the
order.
Sd/-
JUDGE
bkp
CT:MJ
