Karnataka High Court
Prakash Gowda S/O Gurupadappa ... vs State Of Karnataka on 4 January, 2023
Bench: E.S.Indiresh
-1-
WP NO.75790 OF 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.75790 OF 2013 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. PRAKASH GOWDA
S/O GURUPADAPPA PATIL
AGE: 47 YEARS
WORKING AS IN-CHARGE PRINCIPAL OF
P.U.COLLEGE
LECTURER IN PHYSICS
SK ARTS and HSK SCIENCE COLLEGE
HUBLI
DIST: DHARWAD.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAJA VENKATAPPA NAIK, SURESH S, AND
R.R. NAIK, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION,
M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER,
DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE.
3. THE PRINCIPAL,
SK ARTS and HK SCIENCE COLLEGE,
HUBLI, DIST: DHARWD.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VINAYAK KULKARNI, AGA FOR R1 AND R2)
-2-
WP NO.75790 OF 2013
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER VIDE ANNEXURE-A
DTD.05.11.2011 BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI
DISMISSING REVIEW APPLICATION PASSED BY RESPONDENT
NO.1 OVER LOOKING, IGNORING AND OMITTING FROM
FOLLOWING THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY HON'BLE HIGH
COURT IN WP.NO.20024-94-1995 DTD.23.08.1995 AND
THEREBY DEPRIVED LEGAL RIGHT TO AVAIL THE BENEFIT OF
JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY HON'BLE SUPREME COURT
IN WP.NO.873/1990 REPORTED IN 1992 PART-2 SUPREME
COURT CASES PAGE 29 IN THE CASE OF KARNATAKA STATE
PRIVATE COLLEGE STOP-GAP LECTURERES ASSOCIATION V/S
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHER WHEREIN IN THE
PETITIONER HAS CLAIMED SALARY ARREARS W.E.F.
21.09.1992 TO 05.06.1998 AND THUS THE IMPUGNED ORDER
VIOLATED ARTICLE 14, 21, 38(1), 39(A), 41 OF THE INDIAN
CONSTITUTION; AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS PRELIMINARY
HEARING B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. Petitioner herein has filed Revision Application in
No.30 of 2011 under Section 131 of the Karnataka Education
Act, 1983, which came to be dismissed by impugned order
dated 05th November, 2011 (Annexure-A) on the ground of
delay in filing the Revision Application and being aggrieved by
the same, the petitioner has presented this writ petition.
WP NO.75790 OF 2013
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
contended that the respondent-authority, being a quasi-judicial
authority, ought to have considered the Revision by condoning
delay liberally and in that view of the matter sought for
interference of this Court.
4. Per contra Sri Vinayak Kulkarni, learned Additional
Government Advocate contended that there is no infirmity in
the order impugned passed by the respondent-authority
rejecting the Revision Application as the same has been
presented beyond limitation period.
5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the
parties, the petitioner herein has challenged the order passed
by the Revisional Authority seeking consideration of his claim
for regularisation, as he has worked as stop-gap Lecturer for a
continuous period of three years. Taking into consideration the
grievance urged by the petitioner herein and in view of the fact
that the respondent authorities being a quasi-judicial authority,
ought to have accepted the Revision Application by enlarging
limitation period, as the delay is only three months and in that
view of the matter, the order dated 05th November, 2011
WP NO.75790 OF 2013
passed by the respondent No.1 in Revision Application No.30 of
2011 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the
respondent-No.1 for fresh consideration, in accordance with
law. Considering the fact that the Revision is of the year 2011,
the Revisional authority shall consider the Revision application
at the earliest and dispose of the same within an outer limit of
six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this
order without embarking upon the question of limitation. In
terms of the above, petition is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
LNN
