State Of Karnataka vs Sri Nagaraj
2021 Latest Caselaw 64 Kant

                        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

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. 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

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/-