Karnataka High Court

Sri Chanrashekaraiah C N vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 June, 2025

Author: H.T. Narendra Prasad

Bench: H.T. Narendra Prasad

                                                     -1-
                                                                    NC: 2025:KHC:19775
                                                                  WP No. 20394 of 2022


                       HC-KAR




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                                 DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

                                                  BEFORE
                           THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
                                WRIT PETITION NO. 20394 OF 2022 (S-RES)
                      BETWEEN:

                      SRI CHANDRASHEKARAIAH C N
                      S/O NARASAIAH
                      AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
                      ASSISTANT MASTER
                      NEHRU VIDYA SHALA HIGH SCHOOL
                      SEEGEHALLI-572213
                      TURUVEKERE TALUK
                      TUMAKURU DISTRICT
                      R/A CHEERANAHALLI
                      NARANAHALLI POST-572213
                      GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT.
                                                                           ...PETITIONER
                      (BY SRI. SRIKANTH M P., ADVOCATE)

                      AND:
Digitally signed by
HEMALATHA A
Location: HIGH        1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
COURTOF                     BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
KARNATAKA                   PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
                            M S BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
                            BANGALORE-560001.

                      2.    THE COMMISSIONER FOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
                            PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
                            NEW PUBLIC OFFICES
                            NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
                            K R CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560001.

                      3.    THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
                            PRIMARY EDUCATION
                            NEW PUBLIC OFFICES
                                -2-
                                            NC: 2025:KHC:19775
                                         WP No. 20394 of 2022


 HC-KAR



     NRUPATHUGNA ROAD
     K R CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560001.

4.   THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
     TUMAKURU SOUTH DISTRICT
     TUMKUR-572213.

5.   THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER
     TURUVEKERE TALUK
     TUMKUR DISTRICT-572213.

6.   SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI SHIKSHANA TRUST (R)
     ADICHUNCHANAGIRI KSHETRA
     NAGAMANGALA TALUK
     MANDYA DISTRICT
     BY ITS SECRETARY.

7.   NEHRU VIDYA SHALA HIGH SCHOOL
     SEEGEHALLI-572213
     TURUVEKERE TALUK
     TUMKUR DISTRICT
     BY ITS SECRETARY.
                                                  ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.BHOJEGOUDA T KOLLER, AGA FOR R1 TO R5:
R7 IS SERVED: NOTICE TO R6 IS DISPENSED WITH
V/O DATED: 28.08.2023)
      THIS WRIT PETITION IS  FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER NO: ED 176
SEW 2014 DATED 17.06.2019 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT
DIRECTING THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO INFORM THE CONCERNED THAT
PAYMENT OF SALARY FOR THE PERIOD FROM 12.04.2013 TILL HIS
APPOINTMENT IS APPROVED IS THAT OF THE MANAGEMENT ALONE VIDE
ANNEXURE-AG AND ETC.

     THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B'
GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM:     HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD


                         ORAL ORDER

This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of

the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated

17.06.2019 vide Annexure-AG issued by the second

NC: 2025:KHC:19775

HC-KAR

respondent, denying the payment of salary to the

petitioner for the period from 12.04.2013 till his

appointment is approved.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the sixth

respondent - Trust established a school called Nehru Vidya

Shala High School at Seegehalli, Turuvekere Taluk,

Tumakuru District. The School was recognized and aided

by the Government of Karnataka. By notification dated

02.02.2013 vide Annexure-B, certain vacancies were

advertised for the posts of Assistant Teachers. In respect

of Nehru Vidya Shala High School is concerned, the post

advertised was for Assistant Teacher (Arts). Since the

petitioner was eligible for the same, he applied for the said

post. By order dated 12.04.2013, the petitioner was

appointed. Subsequently, the sixth respondent submitted

the proposal of the petitioner's appointment for approval

to the Block Education Officer, respondent No.5 herein on

05.06.2013 vide Annexure-H. After conducting the

inspection, the respondent No.5 submitted his

NC: 2025:KHC:19775

HC-KAR

recommendations with regard to the approval of the

petitioner's appointment to the Deputy Director of Public

Instructions, i.e., respondent No.4 herein. Consequently,

the Screening Committee was constituted to re-consider

the recommendation for approval of the appointment of

the petitioner. Even the said Screening Committee

recommended the case of the petitioner for approval.

However, the recommendation of the Committee was

placed before the Director of Public Instructions -

respondent No.3 herein. The respondent No.3, by letter

dated 01.07.2014 vide Annexure-N sent back the proposal

to the respondent No.4 rejecting the same on the ground

that the petitioner has secured a decree in B.Ed. from

Madhya Pradesh Bhoj (Open) University, Bhopal.

According to respondent No.3, the said qualification cannot

be considered for appointment to the post of Assistant

Teacher.

3. Being aggrieved by the said letter dated

01.07.2014, the petitioner approached this Court by filing

NC: 2025:KHC:19775

HC-KAR

a writ petition in W.P.No.49295/2014. This Court, by

order dated 08.11.2016 allowed the writ petition and

directed the third respondent to consider the proposal for

approval of appointment of the petitioner in the light of

Section 23 of the Right to Children to Free and Compulsory

Education Act, 2009 (for short, 'RTI Act'). Being aggrieved

by the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the State

preferred a writ appeal in W.A.No.874/2018. The appeal

came to be dismissed on 08.06.2018. Being aggrieved by

the same, the State approached the Apex Court in SLA (C)

No.20027/2018 and the same came to be dismissed by

order dated 17.08.2018. Thereafter, the petitioner's

appointment as Assistant Teacher (Arts) has been

approved on 26.07.2018 vide Annexure-Z, with a

condition that the petitioner is entitled for salary benefit

from the date of approval of his appointment, i.e., from

26.07.2018. Thereafter the petitioner submitted a

representation dated 19.11.2018 vide Annexure-AC and a

legal notice dated 30.08.2018 vide Annexure-AD stating

NC: 2025:KHC:19775

HC-KAR

that he is entitled to service benefits from 12.04.2013 and

because of the administrative delay in granting approval

the service benefits cannot be denied. Without considering

the representation of the petitioner, the first respondent

issued a communication to the second respondent dated

17.06.2019 vide Annexure-AG directing the management

to pay the salary as per Rule 3(b) of the Karnataka

Education Institutions (Certain terms and conditions of

service of employees in Private un-aided Primary and

Secondary and Pre-University Educational Institutions)

Rules, 2005 (for short, 'the said Rules')

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

submitted that even though the petitioner has challenged

the communication dated 17.06.2019 vide Annexure-AG

by the first respondent to the second respondent, his main

grievance is, his representation in respect of payment of

monetary benefits from 12.04.2013 has not been

considered and no communication or order has been

issued to the petitioner. Annexure-AG letter dated

NC: 2025:KHC:19775

HC-KAR

17.06.2019 is only an internal communication and so far,

no order has been passed on his representation.

Therefore, he will not press the relief in respect of

Annexure-AG since it is not issued to the petitioner.

5. He further submits that a Division Bench of this

Court in W.A.No.1390/2007 disposed of on 18.12.2007,

has held that if an eligible and qualified person has been

appointed to an existing vacancy in accordance with the

Rules and if he actually discharged the functions of that

post, the mere administrative delay on the part of the

Department to issue orders granting approval to the

appointment cannot result in the denial of financial

benefits of the post to the person appointed to the post.

6. The main grievance of the petitioner is that his

appointment has been made after obtaining necessary

permission from the competent authority and after

following all procedure of law, that too, against a vacant

sanctioned post. The management has recommended the

name of the petitioner for approval in the year 2013 itself.

NC: 2025:KHC:19775

HC-KAR

Even though the petitioner is fully qualified to the post of

Assistant Teacher (Arts), the third respondent rejected his

proposal on the ground that B.Ed. Degree obtained by the

petitioner in Madhya Pradesh Bhoj (Open) University,

Bhopal is not recognized. The said Communication has

been challenged before this Court and the same has been

set aside, which has been confirmed by the Apex Court.

Thereafter, the appointment has been approved on

26.07.2018. There is a delay in approving the

appointment. To that effect, he relied on the judgment of

a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1390/2007

disposed of on 18.12.2007. The relevant portion is

extracted below:

"11. ............................

If an eligible and qualified person has been appointed to an existing vacancy in accordance with the Rules and if he actually discharged the functions of that post, the mere administrative delay on the part of the Department to issue orders granting approval to the appointment cannot result in the denial of financial benefits of the post to the

NC: 2025:KHC:19775

HC-KAR

person appointed to the post. Otherwise, in the order granting approval, it should be clearly stated that approval is given only with effect from the date of the order granting approval and that the appointee was not entitled to the appointment prior to that date. When the Department has no case that the appointee was not entitled to the appointment on the date on which he was actually appointed, the Department cannot deny the financial benefits of the post to the appointee only on the ground that the Department took its own time to pass orders granting approval. Hence, we are of the view that there is absolutely no justification for denying the financial benefits to the first respondent for the period from 21.11.1999, the date on which he was actually appointed as Head Master and which appointment was duly approved by the Department."

7. In view of the above facts, the respondents are

directed to consider the representation of the petitioner

dated 19.11.2018 vide Annexure-AC, keeping in view the

order passed by this Court in W.A.No.1390/2007 disposed

of on 18.12.2007 and consider the same without being

influenced by the observations made in the communication

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:19775

HC-KAR

dated 17.06.2019 vide Annexure-AG, as expeditiously as

possible, not later than three months from the date of

receipt of a copy of this order.