Smt Sharadhamma B C vs State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 5036 Kant

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021

                       PRESENT

       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
                         AND
 THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

         WRIT APPEAL NO.652 OF 2021 (S-RES)

BETWEEN:

SMT. SHARADHAMMA.B.C
W/O D.N. SHIVARAJU
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT BASAVESHWARA COFFEE WORKS
BALUEPET, SAKALESHAPUR TALUK
HASSAND DISTRICT-573214
                                        ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR.S, ADVOCATE-PH)

AND:

1.   STATE OF KARNATAKA
     THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
     HIGHER EDUCATION
     VIDHANA SOUDHA
     BENGALURU - 560001

2.   THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
     PUBLIC INSTRUCTORS (DDPI)
     HIGHER EDUCATION
     BEHIND D.C. OFFICE
     HASSAN - 573 201

3.   THE SECRETARY
     B. SIDDANNAYYA HIGH SCHOOL
     AND NOW CALLED VINAYAKA
     VIDYA SAMSTHE, BALUEPET
                                2

     SAKALESHPURA TALUK
     HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 214

4.   SRI. CHANNAKESHAVA
     ARTS TEACHER/SOCIAL STUDIES
     VINAYAKA VIDYA SAMSTHE AND
     B. SIDDANNAYYA HIGH SCHOOL
     BALUEPET, SAKALESHPRURA TALUK
     HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 214
                                             ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. G.V. SHASHIKUMAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
    SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

   THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
04/02/2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP NO.2165/2017 (S-RES) AND IN
REVERSAL OF THE SAME, ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AND
GRANT SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER RELIEFS.

     THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

                        JUDGMENT

Mr. Rajashekhar.S, learned Counsel for the

appellant. Mr.G.V.Shashikumar, learned Additional

Government Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3.

Mr.Abhishek Malipatil, learned counsel for respondent

No.4.

The appeal is admitted for hearing. With the

consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is

heard finally.

2. This intra-Court appeal has been filed

against the order dated 4.02.2021 passed by the

learned Single Judge by which the writ petition

preferred by the appellant has been disposed of.

3. The appellant claims to have obtained B.Ed.

decree from the University of Mysuru in the year 1988.

The appellant further claims that she was appointed in

the respondent No.3 - Institution as an Assistant

Teacher to teach the subject of Social Science. It is the

case of the appellant that from the initial date of

appointment she has rendered services till today as an

Assistant Teacher. With regard to her grievance for

regularisation of her services, the appellant had filed

writ petition before the learned Single Judge which has

been disposed of with a direction to the State

Government to consider the claim of the appellant for

regularisation of her services.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted

that the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in

paragraph 9 of the impugned order is factually incorrect

inasmuch as the appellant had filed the documents

annexed with the writ petition at page Nos.51, 54 and

59 in support of her claim that she was appointed as an

Assistant Teacher to teach the subject of Social Science.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional

Government Advocate submits that in case the

appellant has filed documents in support of her claim

for regularisation of services, her claim shall be

considered in accordance with law.

6. In view of the submissions made and taking

into account the documents annexed to this Writ

Petition at page Nos.51 54 and 59, the finding recorded

in paragraph 9 of the impugned order is set-aside. The

appellant is granted liberty to submit her representation

along with the documents in support of her claim for

regularisation of her services to the State Government

within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of

copy of this order. The State Government shall consider

the claim of the appellant for regularisation of her

services in accordance with law within a period of three

months from the date of receipt of such representation.

7. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

ln.