Karnataka High Court
Smt N P Latha vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:9097
WP No. 19297 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 19297 OF 2013 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT N P LATHA
D/O PANCHAKSHARAIH
AGED:45 YEARS,
WORKING AS ASST. TEACHER
VISHWABHARATHI HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL,
NEAR KARNATAKA DAIRY DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION,
MALLASANDRA VILLAGE,
TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT
2. B S SUGANDARAJ
S/O GANGADHARAIAH,
AGED: 51 YEARS,
Digitally WORKING AS ASST. TEACHER
signed by VISHWABHARATHI HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL,
SUMA
Location: NEAR KARNATAKA DAIRY DEVELOPMENT
HIGH CORPORATION, MALLASANDRA VILLAGE,
COURT
KARNATAKA TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. S.S. PARIKSHIT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY DEPT, OF EDUCATION
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:9097
WP No. 19297 of 2013
M S BUILDING,
BANGALORE-01
2. THE DIRECTOR OF PRIMARY EDUCATION
NEW PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
TUMKUR DISTRICT
TUMKUR-572101
4. THE SECRETARY
VISHWABHARATHI HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL,
NEAR KARNATAKA DAIRY DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, MALLASANDRA VILLAGE,
TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT-572101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PRATHIBHA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE
FOR RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 3;
SRI. M.C. VEERABHADRAIAH AND SRI. DEVARAJ V,
ADVOCATES FOR RESPONDENT NO.4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE
A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR WRIT OR QUASH THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 DATED 05.07.2005
BEARING NO.ANU1:NYA:DAVE:83/03-04 VIDE ANNEXURE - E
AND ALSO THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2
DATED 17.12.2007 IN APPEAL NO.9/2007-08 VIDE ANNEXURE
- F AND FURTHER DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3 TO
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:9097
WP No. 19297 of 2013
APPROVE THE APPOINTMENT OF THE PETITIONERS IN THE
POST OF ASST., TEACHER IN THE SCHOOL RUN BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.4.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners have challenged an order bearing No.
ಅನು1. ಾ . ಾ ೆ.83/03-04 dated 05.07.2005 passed by respondent
No.3 as well as the order dated 17.12.2007 passed by
respondent No.2 in Appeal No.9/2007-08. By the aforesaid
order of respondent No.3, the order approving the appointment
of petitioners was recalled.
2. The petitioners were employed as Assistant
teachers in a school run by respondent No.4. Their
appointment was approved by respondent No.3 on 07.08.1995.
The respondent No.4 was granted aid by the State Government
and therefore, the salary of the petitioners was paid till the
year 2004, when their salary was withheld. The petitioners
along with two others filed W.P.Nos.33177-80/2004 and this
NC: 2025:KHC:9097
Court in terms of the order dated 28.01.2005 set aside the
order withholding the salary of the petitioners and directed the
respondents therein to pay salary. While disposing of the said
writ petition, this Court observed that unless and until the
approval of the appointment of the petitioners is validly recalled
or annulled, the respondents cannot withhold the salary of the
petitioners. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 issued a show-
cause notice on 07.03.2005 on the ground that the approval of
the appointment of the petitioners was not genuine and that
they were not appointed against sanctioned post. The
petitioners submitted their reply consequent to which, the
respondent No.3 passed an order dated 05.07.2005 holding
that the appointment of the petitioners was not in accordance
with the rules and thus, recalled the order dated 18.04.1995
approving their appointment. The petitioners then challenged
the said order in a proceedings under Section 131 of the
Karnataka Education Act, 1983 before the respondent No.2,
who upheld the order passed by the respondent No.3.
3. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioners
are before this Court in this writ petition.
NC: 2025:KHC:9097
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended
that the approval of the appointment of the petitioners was
mooted by respondent No.4 after it furnished all required
information and thereafter the respondent No.3 was duly
satisfied about the process of appointment of the petitioners
and therefore, the respondent No.3 could not have doubted the
validity of the appointment of the petitioners. He therefore,
contends that the impugned order passed by the respondent
No.3 and upheld by the respondent No.2 deserves to be
interfered with.
5. Per contra, learned Additional Government
Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3 submitted that the orders
impugned in this writ petition were challenged before this Court
in W.P.No.39154/2012 and a Coordinate Bench of this Court in
terms of the order dated 04.04.2024 noticed that the enquiry
was not conducted in accordance with law before upholding the
order withdrawing the approval of the appointment of the
petitioner and accordingly, allowed the petition in part and set
aside the impugned order passed by respondent No.2. She
therefore, submits that this writ petition may also be disposed
off on the same terms.
NC: 2025:KHC:9097
6. I have considered the submissions of the learned
counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned High Court
Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.
7. A perusal of the order dated 04.04.2024 passed by
a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.39154/2012 shows
that what was challenged in the said writ petition is also
challenged in this writ petition. Therefore, following the
judgment rendered in W.P.No.39154/2012, this writ petition
deserves to be allowed in part.
8. Hence, the following
ORDER
(i) This writ petition is allowed in part.
(ii) The order dated 17.12.2007 passed by
respondent No.2 in Appeal No.9/2007-08 is
set aside.
(iii) The case is remitted back to the respondent
No.2, who shall hold fresh enquiry and
dispose off the appeal by considering the
observations made by this Court in
W.P.No.39154/2012.
NC: 2025:KHC:9097
(iv) The respondent No.2 is directed to dispose
off the appeal within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of a certified
copy of this order.
(v) The parties are reserved liberty to raise
additional grounds and place additional
material before the respondent No.2, if they
choose to do so.
Sd/-
(R. NATARAJ)
JUDGE
PMR
