Karnataka High Court
Sri Vikas S/O Bhimsingh Dhere vs The Principal on 21 November, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13585
WP No. 105230 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 105230 OF 2023 (EDN-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. VIKAS S/O. BHIMSINGH DHERE,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: PROFESSOR,
R/O. HOLIKATTA, PARAMAJ GALLI,
AT/PO. MIRAJ-416410, DIST: SANGALI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR B. HORATTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE PRINCIPAL,
SRIMAN NIRANJAN JAGADGURU PANCHAM
SHRI. NIJALINGESHWAR MAHASWAMIGAL/
S.N.J.P.S.N.M.S, TRUST'S (IN SHORT S.J.P.N TRUST)
HIRASUGAR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
NIDASOSI, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591236.
Digitally signed
by
2. THE PRESIDENT,
MOHANKUMAR
MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR
B SHELAR
SRIMAN NIRANJAN JAGADGURU PANCHAM
Date:
2023.11.25
12:45:59 +0530
SHRI. NIJALINGESHWAR MAHASWAMIGAL/
S.N.J.P.S.N.M.S, TRUST'S (IN SHORT S.J.P.N TRUST)
HIRASUGAR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
NIDASOSI, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591236.
3. THE SECRETARY,
SRIMAN NIRANJAN JAGADGURU PANCHAM
SHRI. NIJALINGESHWAR MAHASWAMIGAL/
S.N.J.P.S.N.M.S, TRUST'S (IN SHORT S.J.P.N TRUST)
HIRASUGAR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
NIDASOSI, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591236.
4. DIRECTOR OF ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13585
WP No. 105230 of 2023
EDUCATION, NELSON MANDELA MARG,
VASANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI-110070.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. DINESH M. PATIL, ADV. FOR R1 AND R2,
SRI. ANUP DESHAPANDE, ADV. FOR R4,
NOTICE TO R3 SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE
OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
7/7/2023 IN E.A.T NO.06/2018 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE
EDUCATIONAL APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND VIITH ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELGAVI, SITTING AT
CHIKKODI, PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as
well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. The petitioner is questioning the order passed
by the Educational Appellate Tribunal in EAT No.6/2018 on
the file of the VII Addl.District and Sessions Judge,
Belagavi sitting at Chikkodi.
3. The appeal under Section 94 of the Karnataka
Education Act, 1983 ('the Act', for short) is dismissed as
not maintainable.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13585
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner was employed as Assistant Professor in the
1st respondent-Institution. Under Section 94 of the Act,
appeal is filed on the premise that the petitioner in not
allowing to work in the said Institution as Assistant
Professor. It is his further submission that there was no
enquiry held against the petitioner and this being the
position, the act of the respondent-Management in not
allowing the petitioner to work as Assistant Professor and
to discharge his duty as Assistant Professor, amounts to
dismissal without enquiry. He also submits that non-
assignment of work also amounts to dismissal without
enquiry, as such appeal under Section 94 of the Act is
maintainable. He would submit that the Educational
Appellate Tribunal ought to have recorded the finding and
should have permitted the petitioner to prove his
contention raised in the appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents would
submit that the petitioner is not removed from the
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13585
service. He is still on the role as employee of the 1st
respondent Institution and it is his contention that the
petitioner has refused to discharge his duty despite the
respondent Management requesting him to discharge his
duty as an Assistant Professor.
6. It is relevant to note that the appeal was filed in
the year 2018. Learned counsel for the petitioner
Sri.Vijayakumar B Horatti on instructions would submit
that the petitioner is paid salary till 2020. This being the
position, this Court does not find any illegality in the order
passed by the Educational Appellate Tribunal as the appeal
filed in the year 2018 cannot be construed as the appeal
challenging the order of dismissal.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of
his contention has placed reliance on the judgment of the
Division Bench of this Court in Management of
M.S.Ramaiah Medical College and Hospital
Vs.Dr.M.Somashekar, ILR 2004 KAR 37.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13585
8. This Court has perused the said judgment. The
judgment would again make it clear that the appeal under
Section 94 of the Act is maintainable in a situation
contemplated under Section 94 of the Act. Since it is
stated that the petitioner has received salary in the year
2020 and the appeal is filed in the year 2018, this Court
cannot hold that the ratio laid down in the aforementioned
judgment would assist the petitioner. In other words it
supports the case of the respondents.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents submits
that the respondent No.1-Institution though entitled to
initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner, has not
taken any such measure and the petitioner should
appreciate the gesture on the part of the respondent-
Institution.
10. In case, the petitioner is aggrieved by any
action of the respondent-Management, the petitioner is at
liberty for appropriate remedy available under law.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13585
11. For the aforementioned reasons, petition is
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KGK/ct-an
