Karnataka High Court
G Shivaramaiah vs Sri. Ritesh Kumar Singh on 27 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:8569-DB
CCC No. 549 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.549 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1. G SHIVARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
S/O LATE GOVIGOWDA ALLIAS BILIGOWDA
R/O GOWDAGERE VILLAGE AND POST
CHANNAPATNA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 108.
2. VASANTHI M.M.
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
Digitally W/O. HEMANTHAPPA
signed by H R/O: NO.5, PIPELINE ROAD
K HEMA
Location: SOLAPURADAMMA, BADAVANA
High Court SUNKADA KATTE, BANGALORE-560 091.
of Karnataka
3. PREMALATHA K.S.
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
W/O. RAMESHAIAH L.
CHIKKINAHALLI VILLAGE
NAGAVARA POST, CHANNAPATNA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-571 608.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:8569-DB
CCC No. 549 of 2024
4. T.C. RAMEGOWDA
AGED 51 YEARS
S/O LATE CHIKKAPAPAIAH
THIMMANAYAKANAHALLI
ARALERI POST, MALUR TALUK
KOLAR - 563 130.
5. VIRUPAKSHA T.K.
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
S/O. KENCHAIAH V.
R/O: THAGGIHALLI
DODDAVASAHOSAHALLI POST
MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMKUR - 572 175.
6. LAKKAMUTHAIAH R.
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
S/O. LATE RANGAHANUMAIAH
R/O: 576/22, SRI LAKSHMI RANGANATHA NILAYA
VINAYAKANAGARA
NEAR H.P. GAS GODOWN
RAMNAGARA - 562 159.
7. VENKATESHAIAH S.M.
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
S/O. MUTHARAYAPPA
R/O. SINGALIKAPURA
PATHAGANAHALLI (POST)
HOLAVANEHALLI HOBLI, KORATAGERE TALUK
TUMKUR - 572 129.
8. NAGESHA S.
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
S/O. LATE SHIVALINGAIAH L.
R/O. HARUR, H. MAGENAHALLI POST
CHANNAPATTNA TALUK, RAMNAGARA - 562 108.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:8569-DB
CCC No. 549 of 2024
9. SRIDHARA B.M.
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
S/O. MOGANNA SETTY
R/O. BEVURU, VILLAGE AND POST
CHANNAPATTNA TALUK
RAMANAGRA - 562 108.
10. SRINIVASA MURTHY N.
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
S/O. NARASIMAIAH C.
R/O. OBALAPURE VILLAGE AND POST
NELAMANGALA TALUK
BANGALORE - 562 123.
11. NAGARAJU A.
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
S/O. ANJANAPPA
R/O: NO.21, 16TH CROSS, III MAIN
PIPE LINE ROAD, B.H. MINI COLONY
T. DASARAHALLI
BANGALORE - 560 057.
12. RAMESH T.
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
S/O. NANJUNDAPPA T.
R/O: POOJAR LOKESHAPPA
NEAR VENUGOPALASWAMY
TEMPLE ROAD, HOLALKERE
CHITRADURGA - 577 526.
13. KUMARASWAMY B.
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
S/O BASAVARAJAPPA M.
R/O KODI BASAVANABEEDHI
HOLALKERE POST, CHITRADURGA - 577 526.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:8569-DB
CCC No. 549 of 2024
14. LOKESHA K.A.
R/O. KANNASANDRA
H. MOGENAHALLI POST
CHANNAPATNA TALUK
RAMANAGARA - 562 108.
...COMPLAINANTS
(BY SMT. JAYNA KOTHARI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI V. NAVEEN CHANDRA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI RITESH KUMAR SINGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY
EDUCATION, M.S. BUILDING
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. SMT. B.B. CAUVERY
COMMISSIONER
THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
NRUPATUNGA ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 001.
3. SHRI K.N. RAMESH
STATE PROJECT DIRECTOR
SARVA SHIKSHA ABHIYAAN
NEW PUBLIC BUILDING - ANNEX BUILDING
NRUPATUNGA ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 001.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:8569-DB
CCC No. 549 of 2024
4. SHRI. K.N. RAMESH
STATE PROJECT DIRECTOR
SAMAGRA SHIKSHANA ABHIYAN
NEW PUBLIC BUILDING - ANNEX BUILDING
NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.
...ACCUSED
5. STATE OF KARNATAKA
THE DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY
AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
... PROFORMA RESPONDENT
(BY SRI S.H. RAGHAVENDRA, AGA)
........
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF
THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 AND THE CONTEMPT
OF COURT PROCEEDINGS RULES, 1987 READ WITH ARTICLE
215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO INITIATE
APPROPRIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE
ACCUSED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT
OF COURTS ACT, 1971, READ WITH ARTICLE 215 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR DELIBERATE DISOBEDIENCE
OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
DATED 02.03.2023 IN W.P.NO.50461/2019 (S-RES) PRODUCED
AS ANNEXURE-A, ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:8569-DB
CCC No. 549 of 2024
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
N. V. ANJARIA
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN)
This contempt petition is filed against the accused herein for
disobeying the order of this Court dated 02.03.2023 passed by the
learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.50461 of 2019.
2. In Writ Petition No.50461 of 2019, the following order has
been passed by the learned Single Judge:
"9. Following the law declared by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the aforementioned decision, wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically stated that the
trained candidates of D.Ed. are alone are qualified to be
appointed to teach the primary education upto 4th
standard and on further, it is observed that those
teachers are well aware about the child psychology and
have been trained under development of a child at
tender age and the same is absent in so far as the B.Ed.
degree is concerned, and taking into consideration the
law declared by the aforementioned decisions, I am of
the view that incorporating the additional qualification of
B.Ed. in the impugned memorandum by the respondent
Authorities is contrary to law and liable to be quashed.
10. Accordingly, I am of the view that the
impugned memorandum dated 24.10.2019 (Annexure-
N) and the endorsement dated 27.09.2019 produce at
Annexure-M, are hereby set aside. In view of setting
aside, the aforementioned official memorandums issued
NC: 2025:KHC:8569-DB
by the State Government, respondent Authorities are
directed to re-consider the case of the petitioners for the
appointment to the post of elementary course having the
requisite qualification in terms of the RCI Act. The
respondent parties shall complete the entire exercise
within three months from the receipt of the certified copy
of this order."
3. The case of the complainants is that as per the order passed
in Writ Petition No.50461 of 2019, the complainants are required to
possess the qualification prescribed by the Rehabilitation Council
of India and not D.Ed. and in spite of them possessing the same,
the accused have refused to appoint them as teachers for specially
abled children and that their representations have been rejected by
the accused in violation of the order passed by this Court in Writ
Petition No.50461 of 2019 and have prayed for contempt
proceedings to be initiated as against the accused.
4. Per contra, accused No.4 has filed his affidavit and contends
that apart from possessing the RCI CRR number, the
complainants, as per the order of this Court, in Writ Petition
No.50461 of 2019 are required to possess D.Ed. qualification and
that is what is prescribed by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as
under the relevant regulations and as the complainants do not
possess the same, their applications have been rejected. On the
NC: 2025:KHC:8569-DB
said ground, it is submitted that no contempt has been committed
by any of the accused.
5. Perusal of the order passed in Writ Petition No.50461 of 2019
in its entirety reveals that the said writ petition was filed challenging
the mandate of the respondents that the petitioners are required to
possess B.Ed. qualification for being appointed as teachers to
teach differently abled children. The learned Single Judge while
allowing the writ petition has observed that what is required as per
the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court is that a candidate is
required to possess D.Ed. qualification and not B.Ed. qualification
and has quashed the notification impugned in the writ petition and
has further directed the respondents to consider the case of the
petitioners for appointment to the post of elementary course having
the requisite qualification in terms of the Rehabilitation Council of
India Act. The order cannot be interpreted that there has been a
direction issued to the respondents to appoint the petitioners, if
they possess the necessary RCI RR number and do not possess
the other necessary qualification of not having the necessary D.Ed.
certificate or other certificates as mandated in law.
NC: 2025:KHC:8569-DB
6. In the instant case, we find that the respondents-accused
having considered the case of the complainants as per the
directions of this Court in Writ Petition No.50461 of 2019, have
rejected the same. The said act cannot be considered to be in
contempt of the order passed in Writ Petition No.50461 of 2019.
7. For the aforementioned reasons, the contempt petition is
hereby dismissed.
8. It is needless to state that if the complainants are aggrieved of
the orders passed by the accused, they are at liberty to challenge
the same in the manner known to law.
Sd/-
(N. V. ANJARIA)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(M.I.ARUN)
JUDGE
hkh.
