Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Anjuman E Himayatul Islam (Regd.) on 19 August, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:32063-DB
WA No. 880 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH 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. 880 OF 2025 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
(SECONDARY EDUCATION)
M.S. BUILDING
DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER
Digitally DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
signed by NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
SRIDEVI S BENGALURU - 560 001.
Location:
High Court 3. THE DIRECTOR
of Karnataka DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
ZILLA PANCHAYATH BHAVAN
B.M. ROAD
RAMANAGARA - 562 159.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:32063-DB
WA No. 880 of 2025
HC-KAR
5. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER
ZILLA PANCHAYATH BHAVAN
B.M. ROAD
RAMANAGARA - 562 159.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. ANJUMAN E HIMAYATUL ISLAM (REGD.)
RAMANAGARA TOWN
RAMANAGARA - 562 159
REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT
SYED MATEEIN AGA.
...RESPONDENT
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 25.07.2024 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION
No.2000/2023 BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND DISMISS THE
SAID WRIT PETITION & ETC.
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. For the reasons stated in the application - I.A.1/2025, the
same is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
NC: 2025:KHC:32063-DB
HC-KAR
2. The appellants have filed the present appeal impugning an
order dated 25.07.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ
Petition No.2000/2023(S-RES) [impugned order] captioned
Anjuman E Himayatul Islam (Regd.) v. State of Karnataka and ors.
The respondent, which is an aided institution, had filed the
aforesaid petition impugning an order dated 04.11.2022 and a
communication dated 05.12.2022, whereby the appellant No.3, the
Director, Department of Public Instructions, had returned the
respondent's recommendation for approving the appointment of
two persons to the post of assistant teachers. The said
recommendation was returned essentially on two grounds. First,
that the respondent had not completed the appointment within the
time allowed and had not attached the Minutes of the Meeting,
whereby a decision was taken to request for condonation of delay;
and second, that there was discrepancy in the marks of one of the
selected candidates (Ms. Nazia Thabassum). Whilst, in one of the
documents, it was reflected as 67%, and in the other it was
reflected as 69.21%.
3. The learned Single Judge found that the delay in filling up the
vacancies had been condoned by the appellants, while granting
NC: 2025:KHC:32063-DB
HC-KAR
permission on 18.08.2018. Further, the said communication had
stipulated that (i) the process of filling up the vacancies ought to be
completed within 90 days; (ii) the candidate selected should be
eligible according to the Circular dated 29.09.2016; and (iii) in the
event of any complaints against the selection, the same would be
resolved by the Institution. Concededly, none of the said three
conditions had been violated by the respondent.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits
that the impugned order also refers to the decision of this Court in
WP No.11667/2022, which is to the effect that the competent
authorities have a minimal role to play in filling up vacancies of the
aided institutions. He submits that an appeal has been filed against
the said decision and therefore, the appellants have filed the
present appeal. However, he does not dispute that the said issue
does not arise in the present case, since the factual findings are
that the competent authority has in fact granted extension of time
and the conditions as stipulated were not violated. Thus, in the
factual backdrop of the present case, it is not necessary to examine
whether the competent authority was bound to accord permission,
as soon as a request is made by an institution. In the present case,
NC: 2025:KHC:32063-DB
HC-KAR
the Competent Authority had acceded to the request of the
respondent-institution subject to certain conditions and, none of the
said conditions have been violated.
5. Insofar as the second issue regarding discrepancy in the
marks of one of the selected candidates is concerned, the learned
Single Judge had noted that there is some error in recording the
marks, in as much as the concerned candidate had mentioned her
marks as 67%, but her academic credentials reflected that she had
secured 69.21%. However, the said discrepancy was not
consequential, as the Rules did not contemplate any minimum
percentage as qualifying marks in B.Ed., course. Thus, irrespective
of whether the candidate had secured 67% or 69.21%, her
candidature for appointment as an assistant teacher could not be
rejected on that ground. It is also material to note that there is no
cavil that the candidate in question holds the requisite educational
qualifications. Thus, the grant-in-aid in respect of the selected
candidate cannot be withheld on that ground.
6. In the given circumstances, we find no merit in the present
appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, we clarify
that neither the impugned order nor the dismissal of the present
NC: 2025:KHC:32063-DB
HC-KAR
appeal would preclude the appellants from canvassing their
contentions insofar as the decision of the Court in
WP.No.11667/2022 is concerned.
7. Pending application is also disposed of.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
SD
