Karnataka High Court
The Secretary vs Sri N Umesh on 18 August, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:31900-DB
WA No. 1037 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1037 OF 2025 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
THE SECRETARY,
VIJAYA EDUCATION SOCIETY (REGD.),
GRAM PANCHAYATH ROAD, HINAKAL DIST.,
MYSORE-570 017.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI M.S BHAGAWAT, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI SATISH K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI N UMESH,
S/O T NAGARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
Digitally R/AT DOOR NO. 170,
signed by RAMA VILASA ROAD,
NANDINI R MYSORE-570 024.
Location:
HIGH COURT 2. THE CORRESPONDENT,
OF
KARNATAKA MYSORE RURAL INDUSTRIAL
TRAINING CENTRE, HINAKAL,
MYSORE-570 017.
3. THE DIRECTOR,
DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT
AND TRAINING,
NO.9/1, SRI. PRASHANTH COMPLEX,
P. KALINGA RAO ROAD, BANGALORE-560 027.
4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS SECRETARY,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:31900-DB
WA No. 1037 of 2025
HC-KAR
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS
PERTAINING TO THE WP No-26679/2011 ii) SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.08.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No-26679/2011 AND CONSEQUENTLY
ALLOW THE WP No-26679/2011 FILED BY THE APPELLANT /
PETITIONER AS PRAYER FOR IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY. iii) PASS ANY OTHER ORDER AS THIS HON'BLE COURT
DEEMS FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
INCLUDING THE COST OF THIS WRIT APPEAL.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order
dated 30.08.2023[impugned order], passed by the learned Single
Judge in Writ Petition No.26679/2011 (S-RES), whereby, the said
petition was rejected. The appellant had filed the said petition impugning
an order dated 28.02.2011 passed by the learned Principal District &
Sessions Judge and Chairman, Educational Appellate Tribunal, Mysore
[Tribunal], allowing respondent No.1's appeal under Section 94 of the
Karnataka Education Act, 1983 [the Act].
NC: 2025:KHC:31900-DB
HC-KAR
2. The learned Tribunal has allowed the appeal, set aside
respondent No.1's dismissal order dated 10.08.2001 and directed
that respondent No.1 be reinstated to the post of Junior Training
Officer with continuity of service. Additionally, the learned Tribunal
also directed the appellant to extend all consequential monetary
benefits.
3. Respondent No.1 was appointed on the post of the Instructor
in ersthwile Society [Mysore Rural Industrial Training and
Educational Society] on 23.12.1985. The said Society was admitted
for Grant-in-Aid, whereby 75% of the salary component was
provided by the Government as grant. Admittedly, respondent
No.3 [the Director of Department of Employment and Training]
approved the grant in respect of the salary payable to the
respondent No.1.
4. In terms of an order dated 16.11.1998 passed by the State
Government, Mysore Rural Industrial Training and Educational
Society was merged with the appellant society. Subsequently,
respondent No.3 issued a show cause notice dated 30.03.2001 to
the appellant alleging that it had recommended respondent No.1's
grant in aid by furnishing incorrect particulars. Thereafter, enquiry
NC: 2025:KHC:31900-DB
HC-KAR
was conducted and on the basis of the enquiry report, respondent
No.1 was dismissed from his service by way of communication
dated 10.08.2001.
5. Respondent No.1 challenged the said dismissal order by
filing a Writ Petition being W.P.No.31572/2001, in this Court.
However, that petition was dismissed by an order dated 12.07.2006
on the ground that respondent No.1 had an alternate statutory
remedy under Section 94 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983.
Respondent No.1 was also granted the liberty to approach the
learned tribunal to challenge his dismissal order.
6. It is material to note that at that stage, the appellant did not
raise any objection that an appeal would not be maintainable
before the Educational Appellate Tribunal.
7. Respondent No.1 filed an appeal before the learned Tribunal
and as noted above, the learned Tribunal set aside the dismissal
order, which was impugned by respondent no.1. The appellant did
not raise any objection regarding maintainability of the appeal
before the learned Tribunal.
NC: 2025:KHC:31900-DB
HC-KAR
8. The appellant, thereafter, filed a Writ Petition being
W.P.No.26679/ 2011, challenging the order passed by the learned
Tribunal. The said petition was dismissed by the impugned order.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the
impugned order, principally, on the ground that the learned Single
Judge has not examined the question, whether the appeal before
the Tribunal was maintainable. He submits that this is a question of
law and, therefore, could be raised at any stage of the proceedings.
10. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant.
11. It is also relevant to note that there is no dispute that
respondent No.1 had truly disclosed his educational qualifications
for the purpose of his appointment. His credentials and
qualifications were duly examined. According to respondent No.1,
his qualification of possessing a National Trade Certificate in the
Trade of Millwright Mechanic was compliant with the eligibility
criteria. Since there was no material to establish that respondent
No.1 had produced any incorrect certificate or had secured the
employment on the basis of any false statement, the Tribunal held
NC: 2025:KHC:31900-DB
HC-KAR
that the charge of misconduct was unsustainable. And, accordingly,
set aside the dismissal order.
12. We note that the present appeal has been filed after an
inordinate delay of 642 (six hundred and forty two) days. There is
no credible explanation for such an inordinate delay.
13. According to the appellant, after receiving the impugned, it
was placed before the appellant's Management for appropriate
instructions. However, there were divergent views and it was
decided to approach the Government for guidance regarding
further action. Subsequently, the Government clarified that the
decision whether to prefer the appeal would rest with the
Management of the appellant society. This according to the
appellant had caused the delay in filling the present appeal.
However, the appellant has not provided any dates or specific
timelines as to when the appellant's Management had discussed
the matter; when was the decision taken to approach the
Government; when did the Government advise the appellant to
take a decision independently; and when did the appellant take a
decision to file the appeal.
NC: 2025:KHC:31900-DB
HC-KAR
14. It is also stated that during the pendency of the Execution
Petition, the documents furnished by the State authorities had
revealed that one of the witnesses RW7, [who was then the Deputy
Director] had deposed falsely and contrary to the documentary
evidence, before the learned Tribunal. This had prompted re-
evaluation of the legal position. However, no specific timelines have
been indicated in this regard as well.
15. In view of the above, we are not persuaded to accept that the
appellant has explained sufficient cause that had prevented him
from filing the present appeal within time. Therefore, IA No.1/2025
seeking condonation of delay of 642 days in filing the appeal is
dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed as barred
by limitation.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
tsn*
