Karnataka High Court
Kanara Welfare Trust vs Sri. Jairanganatha B.S. S/O B. ... on 3 March, 2022
Bench: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav, K.S.Hemalekha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
W.A. NO. 100023/2021 (S-TR) C/W
W.A. NO. 100024/2021 (S-TR)
IN W.A. NO. 100023/2021 (S-TR)
BETWEEN:
KANARA WELFARE TRUST, ANKOLA,
TQ: ANKOLA-581 314, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.
- APPELLANT
(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. JAIRANGANATHA B.S,
S/O B. SHARANAPPA, AGED: 48 YEARS,
OCC: ASSISTANT TEACHER,
R/O: JANATA VIDYALAYA, MUDAGA, TQ: KARWAR,
DISTRICT UTTARA KANNADA-581 324.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY
ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PRIMARY AND
SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE DIRECTOR,
PRIMARY & SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.
2
4. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER,
PUBLIC INSTRUCTION AND EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
(SECONDARY EDUCATION), DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD-01.
5. THE DIRECTOR I/C, OFFICE OF
PUBLIC INSTRUCTION AND EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT, DHARWAD-01.
6. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, KARWAR,
THE PUBLIC INSTRUCTION AND
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, U.K. TQ. KARWAR,
DIST: UTTARA KANNADA, 581 324.
7. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER,
KARWAR, DISTRICT: UTTARA KANNADA-581 324.
8. SRI KRISTANAND BHASKAR PISSE,
AGED 44 YEARS, OCC: ASST. TEACHER,
R/O: JANATA VIDYALAYA BAAD-KAGAL,
TQ: KUMTA, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581 205.
- RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI G.K. HIREGOUDAR, AGA FOR R2 TO R7,
SMT. VEENA HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R8,
NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 11.12.2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE
IN W.P. NO. 112336/2019 & ETC.
IN W.A. NO. 100024/2021 (S-TR)
BETWEEN:
1. KANARA WELFARE TRUST (REGD),
JANATA EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS, ANKOLA,
TQ: KARWAR-581 314, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. JANATHA VIDYALAY, BADA-KAGAL KUMTA-581 332,
TQ: KUMTA, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA,
REP. BY ITS HEAD MASTER.
- APPELLANTS
3
(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. CHRISTANAND S/O BHASKAR PISSE,
AGED: 54 YEARS, OCC: ASSISTANT TEACHER,
R/O: KUMTA, TQ. KUMTA,
DISTRICT: UTTARA KANNADA-581 332.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY
ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION,
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-01.
3. THE COMMISSIONER,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-01.
4. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
DHARWAD-580 001.
5. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, UTTARA KANNADA,
DISTRICT: UTTARA KANNADA-581 301.
6. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
KUMTA, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581 322.
7. JAIRANGANATHA B.S. S/O B. SHARANAPPA,
AGED: 48 YEARS, OCC: ASSISTANT TEACHER,
R/O: JANATA VIDYALAYA, MUDAGA, TQ: KARWAR,
DISTRICT UTTARA KANNADA-581 324.
- RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI G.K. HIREGOUDAR, AGA FOR R2 TO R6,
SMT. VEENA HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R7,
NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 11.12.2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE
IN W.P. NO. 147473/2020 & ETC.
4
THESE WRIT APPEALS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
W.A. No. 100023/2021 has been filed by the Kanara
Welfare Trust calling in question the order passed in W.P. No.
112336/2019 whereby the petition came to be allowed and the
impugned order dated 26.07.2019 came to be set aside. W.A.
No. 100024/2021 has also been filed by the Kanara Welfare
Trust as also the institution Janata Vidyalaya calling in question
the same impugned order. W.P. No. 147473/2020 and W.P. No.
112336/2019 were disposed off by a common order. In the light
of the identical factual matrix involved in both the appeals, they
are taken up together and disposed of by the common order.
2. The facts that are made are that, proposal for transfer was
sent by the Kanara Welfare Trust to the Government. It is
submitted that the application sent at the first instance came to
be returned as there were certain defects as per Annexure-R3
dated 24.05.2019. It further comes out from the facts that the
said application was once again submitted after curing the
defects and came to be re-presented on 11.07.2019. It is
further made out that the transfer order came to be passed on
26.07.2019 as per Annexure-K. By virtue of the said transfer
order, respondent No.8 came to be transferred to the place of
writ petitioner. The said order at Annexure-K was called in
question before the learned single Judge as the learned single
Judge has disposed of the writ petition while taking note of the
schedule of transfer as found at Annexure-A to the writ petition
dated 22.03.2019. The schedule with timelines is extracted
below:
PÀ.æ ¸ÀA. «µÀAiÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ
1 SÁ¸ÀV C£ÀÄzÁ¤vÀ ±Á¯Á DqÀ½vÀ ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀĪÀgÀÄ ªÀÄgÀÄ 25.03.2019
ºÉÆAzÁtÂPÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀUÁðªÀuÉ ¥À¸ æ ÁÛª£ À U É ¼À À£ÀÄß ¸ÀA§Azs¥À ÀlÖ PÉëÃvÀæ
²PÀëuÁ¢üPÁjUÀ½UÉ ¸À°è¸ÀĪÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ
2. PÉëÃvÀæ ²PÀëuÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ DqÀ½vÀ ªÀÄAqÀ½¬ÄAzÀ §AzÀ 15.04.2019
¥À¸ æ ÁÛª£À UÉ ¼À £À ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹, ±Á¯Á ªÀiÁ£ÀåvÉ £À«ÃPÀgt À ,
zÁR¯Áw/ºÁdgÁw «µÀAiÀÄ ºÉÆAzÁtÂPÉ EvÁå¢ CA±ÀU¼ À £
À ÀÄß
RavÀ¥r À ¹PÉÆAqÀÄ J¯Áè zÁR¯ÉU¼ À £À ÀÄß zsÀÈrüÃPÀj¹, ¥ÀÄl ¸ÀASÉå
ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥Àj«rAiÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÀàµÀÖ C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄzÉÆA¢UÉ DAiÀiÁ f¯Áè
G¥À¤zÉÃð±ÀPj À UÉ ¸À°è¸ÀĪÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ
3 f¯Áè G¥À¤zÉÃð±ÀPg À ÀÄ, PÉëÃvÀæ ²PÀëuÁ¢üPÁjUÀ½AzÀ §AzÀ 25.04.2019
zsÀÈrüPgÀ tÀ UÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀ ¥À¸ æ ÁÛª£À UÉ ¼ À £À ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹, ¸ÀàµÀÖ
C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄzÉÆA¢UÉ DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀ PÀbÃÉ jUÉ ¸À°è¸ÀĪÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ
4 G¥À¤zÉÃð±ÀPj À AzÀ ¸À°èPA É iÀiÁzÀ ¥À¸ æ ÁÛª£ À U
É ¼
À À£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹ 25.05.2019
¤zÉÃð±ÀPg À ÀÄ (¥ËæqsÀ ²PÀët) EªÀgÀ ºÀAvÀz° À è ªÀUÁðªÀuÉ
C£ÀĪÉÆÃzÀ£É ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ CAwªÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ
«±ÉõÀ ¸ÀÆZÀ£:É ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉ ¤Ãw ¸ÀA»vÉ eÁjAiÀÄ°ègÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÁ ªÀiÁzÀj
¤Ãw ¸ÀA»vÉ ªÀÄÄVzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ CAwªÀÄ DzÉñÀ ºÉÆgÀr¸À¯ÁUÀĪÀÅzÀÄ.
(ªÀiÁ£Àå DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀ DzÉñÀzÀ ªÉÄÃgÉU)É
3. Learned single Judge has set aside the order of transfer
while noticing that the time prescribed for finalization was
25.05.2019 and the application by the institution after rectifying
the defects came to be re-submitted on 11.07.2019, which was
after the date prescribed. Various contentions have been raised
by the appellant including that the timeline stipulated in the
table at Annexure-A also contains a note that stipulates that the
final order would be passed after the Model Code of Conduct that
was in operation would cease to operate in the light of the
elections. Accordingly, counsel for the appellant Sri Vishwanath
Hegde vehemently contends that the timelines should have been
construed to be directory in the light of the order being passed
only after lapse of the Model Code of conduct that was in force.
4. It is also pointed out that the contentions raised were
technical in nature and respondent No.8 was in the same post
for 17 years. It is further contended that the action of transfer
ought not to be interfered with on technical grounds.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.8, however supports
the order of the learned single Judge.
6. Heard both sides.
7. The finding of the learned single Judge regarding the
timeline deserves acceptance as the guidelines as found in
Annexure-A provides that the last date for approval of the
transfer is 25.05.2019 whereas the application came to be re-
submitted by the authority on 11.07.2019. In matter regarding
transfers timeline ought to be adhered to strictly. Taking note of
the scope of the present proceedings as this Court is sitting in
appeal, no ground is made out to re-appreciate the contentions
and take a different view. Though there are notings in the
Annexure-A stating that the final order would be passed after the
Code of Conduct comes to an end, that by itself would not lead
to relaxing the timeline provided. The very return of the
application could have been challenged if it is the contention as
made out by the appellant that the return itself was on a ground
that was contrary to the requirements under the circular.
8. No doubt the counsel for the appellant submits that in the
light of the interim order of stay passed by this Court, the
transfer has been given effect to. However, in the light of
upholding the order of the learned single Judge, the legal
consequences are to be borne by the parties irrespective of
inequities that may have been caused by lapse of time.
However, the power of the appellant to take steps for transfer
remains and could be exercised as and when circumstances are
made out warranting such exercise of power.
For the foregoing reasons, the appeals are dismissed.
Pending IAs, if any, in both the appeals, also stand dismissed.
SD
JUDGE
SD
JUDGE
bvv
