Seshadripuram Educational Trust vs The Joint Secretary, Government ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 126 Kant

                               1

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY 2023

                        PRESENT

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                          AND

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

              W.A.No.739/2021 (S-RES)


BETWEEN:

1.     SESHADRIPURAM EDUCATIONAL
       TRUST, SESHADRIPURAM
       BANGALORE - 560 020
       REPRESENTED BY ITS
       HONORARY SECRETARY
       DR. WOODAY P KRISHNA.

2.     SESHADRIPURAM EVENING
       PRE-UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
       SESAHDRIPURAM
       BANGALORE - 560 020
       REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL.   ...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI GIRIDHAR S.V., ADV.)

AND:

1.     THE JOINT SECRETARY
       GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
       PRIMARY AND SECONDARY
       EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
       M.S. BUILDING
       BANGALORE - 560 01.

2.     THE DIRECTOR PRE-UNIVERSITY
       EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
       18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM
       BANGALORE - 560 003.
                            2




3.   THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
     PRE-UNIVERSITY
     EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
     BANGALORE - 560 003.

4.   SMT. L. SHANTA
     D/O SRI LINGAIAH
     AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
     LECTURER IN POLITICAL SCIENCE
     SESHADRIPURAM EVENGING
     PRE-UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
     SESHADRIPURAM
     BANGALORE - 560 020
     RESIDING AT NO.1/2
     LAGGERE MAIN ROAD
     PEENYA POST
     BANGALORE - 560 058.               ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI M.P. SRIKANTH, ADV., FOR C/R-4;
SRI B. RAJENDRA PRASAD, HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-3)

     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 20085/2019 DATED
18.06.2021 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW WRIT PETITION
NO.20085/2019 IN ENTIRETY AS PRAYED FOR.


     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
VISHWAJITH SHETTY J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                   JUDGMENT

This intra court appeal is filed assailing the order

dated 18.06.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of

this Court in W.P.No.20085/2019.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and

also perused the material available on record.

3. Facts leading to filing of this appeal narrated in

brief are, respondent no.4 was appointed as a part time

lecturer in Political Science in appellant no.2-Institution in

the year 1999. On 24.05.2004, a specific order regarding

her appointment was passed by the appellant-Institution,

and on 25.05.2006, yet another order of appointment

was passed and thereafter she was transferred to

another institution run by appellant no.1. On 07.03.2013,

a communication was issued to respondent no.4 that her

appointment should not be considered as a permanent

appointment and she would be continued as a part time

lecturer with a consolidated pay of Rs.9,700/- and

challenging the same, respondent no.4 had filed a

revision petition under Section 131 of the Karnataka

Education Act, 1983 (for short, 'the Act'), and the

revisional authority allowed the revision petition, set

aside the order dated 07.03.2013 which changed the

status of the employee from permanent to temporary

and reserved liberty to the Management to take action in

terms of Section 98 of the Act. The said order dated

20.03.2019 passed in Revision Petition No.20/2013 was

questioned before this Court in W.P.No.20085/2019 by

appellants/management and the learned Single Judge of

this Court vide the order impugned has dismissed the

writ petition and being aggrieved by the same, this intra

court appeal is preferred.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that

the appointment of respondent no.4 was temporary and

she was on probation. He submits that merely for the

reason that she was continued in service even after

completion of probation period, it cannot be said that she

had a regular appointment in her favour. He submits that

there should be a specific order to the said effect and

unless such an order is passed, her appointment cannot

be considered as regular appointment. In this regard, he

has referred to Rule 29 of the Karnataka Educational

Institutions (Collegiate Education) Rules, 2003. In

support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the

judgments in the case of DURGABAI DESHMUKH

MEMORIAL SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL & ANOTHER

VS J.A.J. VASU SENA & ANOTHER - (2019)17 SCC 157,

G.S.RAMASWAMY & OTHERS VS THE INSPECTOR

GENERAL OF POLICE, MYSORE STATE, BANGALORE - AIR

1966 SC 175, and POORNAPRAJNA EDUCATIONAL

CENTRE, BELUR VS PUSHPA - 2022 SCC Online Kar 362.

5. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for

respondent no.4 has argued in support of the impugned

order and submits that the order of appointment issued

in the year 2006 would go to show that the appointment

of respondent no.4 under the said order was a regular

appointment and she was also subsequently transferred

from one institution to another run by appellant no.1. He

submits that if respondent no.4's appointment was not

regular, it was not necessary for the appellant-Institution

to issue the communication dated 07.03.2013 changing

the status of respondent no.4 from permanency to

temporary. He, accordingly, prays to dismiss the appeal.

6. The learned Single Judge in the order impugned

has extracted the appointment orders dated 24.05.2004

& 25.05.2006 issued in favour of respondent no.4 by the

appellant-Institution. Having extracted the appointment

orders, the learned Single Judge has observed that from

a perusal of the said orders on their juxtaposition, in

unmistakable terms they would indicate that the said

orders are distinct to the effect that the first order was a

contract appointment and the second was a regular

appointment. The learned Single Judge has also observed

that none of the conditions stipulated in the first order

appears in the subsequent order and he has also

observed that respondent no.4 is held entitled to all

eligible and usual allowances that a regular employee is

entitled to for similar post from time to time and

respondent no.4 was also made liable for transfer from

one institution to the other inter alia and it is under these

circumstances, the learned Single Judge has considered

the appointment order of 2006 as a regular appointment.

7. The status of respondent no.4 as a regular

employee had continued thereafter until the

communication dated 07.03.2013 was issued by the

appellant-Institution. In the meanwhile, respondent no.4

was transferred from one institution to the another and in

the transfer order she was described as a permanent

employee and all allowances that were payable to the

regular employee were granted to her. It is under these

circumstances, the learned Single Judge has held that no

specific order of confirmation of appointment after

completion of the probation period was required to be

passed and it is deemed that the appointment has been

confirmed. The learned Single Judge has also taken note

of the fact that the revisional authority had reserved

liberty to the appellant-Management to take action

against respondent no.4-employee under Section 98 of

the Act after following due procedure as laid down

therein. We, therefore, find no good grounds to interfere

with the orders passed by the learned Single Judge which

is impugned in this writ petition.

8. The judgments on which reliance has been

placed by the learned Counsel for the appellants would

not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the

present case as the appellants have passed the

appointment order dated 25.05.2006, a reading of which

would go to show that the appointment of respondent

no.4 was regular appointment. Under the circumstances,

we do not find any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the

same is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE KK