Karnataka High Court
Sri. Kalabyraveshwara Vidya Samsthe vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:12467-DB
WA No. 57 of 2024
C/W CCC No. 361 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT APPEAL No. 57 OF 2024 (S-RES)
C/W
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION No. 361 OF 2024
IN WA No. 57/2024
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. KALABYRAVESHWARA VIDYA SAMSTHE,
SRI RAMPURA, TURUVEKERE TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572218,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.
...APPELLANT
Digitally signed
by VALLI
MARIMUTHU (BY SRI R. SUBRAMANYA, ADVOCATE)
Location:
HIGH COURT AND:
OF
KARNATAKA 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
PRIMARY AND HIGH SCHOOL EDUCATION,
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
M. S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU 560001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
(PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION)
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU 560001.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:12467-DB
WA No. 57 of 2024
C/W CCC No. 361 of 2024
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
TUMAKURU DISTRICT,
TUMAKURU 572218.
4. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER,
OFFICE OF EDUCATION OFFICER,
TURUVEKERE-572201.
5. SRI RAVIPRASAD N. R.,
AGE MAJOR,
TEACHER IN MATHEMATICS,
SRI KALABYRAVESHWARA RURAL
HIGHER SCHOOL, D. KALKERI,
TURUVEKERE TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT 572218.
6. SRI. NANDISH. K.,
S/O. KOTTURAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
RESIDING AT KENKERE POST,
HULIYAR HOBLI,
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572218.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No.
43435/2019 DATED 5.12.2023 AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN CCC No. 361/2024
BETWEEN:
1. SRI NANDISH K.,
S/O KOTTURAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
RESIDING AT KENKERE POST,
HULIYUR HOBLI,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:12467-DB
WA No. 57 of 2024
C/W CCC No. 361 of 2024
CHIKKANAYAKANA HALLI TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572218.
...COMPLAINANT
(BY SRI C. SHUBHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI CHANDRAKANTH R. GOULAY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI RANGADHAMAIAH,
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
TUMKUR DISTRICT,
TUMKUR -572218.
2. SMT. SAVITRAMMA,
SECRETARY,
SRI KALABYRAVESHWARA VIDYA SAMSTHE (R),
SRIRAMAURA, TURUVEKERE TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT -572218.
3. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY AND
SECONDARY EDUCATION,
M. S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560001.
...ACCUSED
(BY SRI NAVEEN CHANDRASHEKAR, AGA FOR R1 & R3;
SRI S.S. PARIKSHIT, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE
CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, R/W ARTICLE 215 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND RULE 5 OF HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA (CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS) RULES,
1972, BY THE COMPLAINANT PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR DELIBERATE AND
INTENTIONAL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER DATED 05.12.2023
OF THIS HON'BLE COURT MADE IN WP No.43435/2019 AS PER
ANNEXURE - A, AND TO PASS APPROPRIATE SUITABLE ORDERS.
THIS APPEAL AND CCC COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:12467-DB
WA No. 57 of 2024
C/W CCC No. 361 of 2024
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
N. V. ANJARIA
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND)
Heard learned advocate Mr. R. Subramanya for the appellant
and learned Government Advocate Mr. K.S. Harish for respondent
Nos.1 to 4 in Writ Appeal No.57 of 2024; and learned advocate for
Mr. C. Shubhankar for learned advocate Mr. Chandrakanth R.
Goulay for the complainant, learned Additional Government
Advocate Mr. Naveen Chandrashekar for respondent Nos.1 and 3
and learned advocate Mr. S.S. Parikshit for respondent No.2 in
CCC No.361 of 2024.
2. It is the case of the petitioner/respondent No. 6 that he was
appointed on 03.02.2010, as per appointment order at Annexure-A.
The name of the petitioner was recommended by respondent No.
5/appellant-Institution for approval of appointment on 15.06.2011.
While the petitioner was working as an Assistant Teacher, in 2013,
he was assigned election duty through respondent No. 5-Institution.
A resolution dated 15.08.2013 was passed by respondent No. 5-
Institution proposing to seek grant-in-aid from the Government, in
NC: 2025:KHC:12467-DB
which the petitioner's name was included. The Three Members
Screening Committee scrutinized the application of respondent No.
5-Institution and recommended the grant-in-aid to the Institution,
which included the name of the petitioner. The Deputy Director of
Public Instructions approved the appointment of ten employees by
order dated 10.06.2014, which granted the petitioner eligibility for
the grant. Respondent No. 5-Institution issued a Service
Certificate dated 03.07.2015 to the petitioner for his service
rendered from 03.02.2010 to 03.07.2015. These dates are relevant
in considering the case of respondent No. 5-Institution that the
petitioner had voluntarily resigned from service on 01.06.2012.
3. The learned Single Judge rejected the contention of
respondent No. 5-Institution that the petitioner was not entitled to
the grant in view of his voluntary resignation from service on
01.06.2012. The learned Single Judge directed to include name of
the petitioner for the grant, as recommended by the Three
Members Screening Committee. Further, the learned Single Judge
imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000/- on respondent No. 5-Institution, to
be payable to the petitioner.
NC: 2025:KHC:12467-DB
4. Learned Advocate Mr. R. Subramanya, appearing for
respondent No. 5/appellant-Institution, submits that the petitioner
voluntarily retired on 01.06.2012. In view of his retirement from
service with the appellant-Institution, the petitioner is not entitled to
the grant. It is further submitted that, although the learned Single
Judge directed the inclusion of the petitioner for the grant, the
direction should have also been issued to respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to
pay all the benefits. Additionally, it is submitted that the imposition
of cost was unwarranted. Further, the observations made regarding
the conduct of the Institution were unnecessary. The stand taken
by the Institution was based on the resignation submitted by the
petitioner on 01.06.2012.
5. Learned Advocate appearing for respondent No. 6/petitioner
submits that the petitioner joined service on 03.02.2010 and did not
submit his resignation on 01.06.2012, as contended by the
Institution. The Institution issued a Service Certificate to the
petitioner, certifying his service from 03.02.2010 to 03.07.2015. It
is further submitted that the Three Member Screening Committee
scrutinized the application of the Institution and recommended
grant-in-aid to the Institution by order dated 07.06.2014, wherein
NC: 2025:KHC:12467-DB
the name of the petitioner was included. The petitioner was in
service as of the date of the recommendation for the grant-in-aid,
and as such, is entitled to the salary grant, as directed by the
learned Single Judge.
6. Having considered the submissions of the learned advocates
for the parties, it is evident that the petitioner was appointed on
03.02.2010. On 15.06.2011, the Institution resolved to recommend
his name for the approval of his appointment, along with nine other
persons. Annexure-E, dated 22.04.2013, indicates that the
petitioner was deputed on election duty while working as an
Assistant Teacher in the Institution. Further, Annexure-G, the
resolution passed by the Institution dated 15.08.2013, includes the
name of the petitioner. The Three Members Screening Committee
recommended grant-in-aid to the Institution on 07.06.2014, which
also included the petitioner's name. Annexure-M, the Service
Certificate issued by the Institution, clearly shows that the petitioner
served in the Institution from 03.02.2010 to 03.07.2015. The
contention of the Institution that the petitioner voluntarily resigned
from service on 01.06.2012 is incorrect. Had the petitioner resigned
voluntarily on 01.06.2012, as contended, he would not have been
NC: 2025:KHC:12467-DB
deputed on election duty in 2013. Furthermore, his name would not
have been included in the resolution dated 15.08.2013, nor in the
recommendation made by the Three Members Screening
Committee on 07.06.2014. The Service Certificate itself is a
document issued by the Institution, which further supports the claim
of the petitioner. Having considered these aspects, the learned
Single Judge was justified in directing the Deputy Director of Public
Instructions to include the name of the petitioner for the grant, as
recommended by the Three Members Screening Committee. No
infirmity has been pointed out in the order of the learned Single
Judge that warrants interference by this Court.
7. Learned Advocate for the appellant-Institution has further
submitted that the salary grant was denied to the petitioner based
on his voluntary resignation submitted on 01.06.2012. Except for
this reason, there were no other grounds for denying the salary
grant to the petitioner. The stand taken by the Institution was bona
fide and without any mala fide intentions. Accordingly, he submits
that the imposition of a cost of Rs. 50,000/- is unwarranted and
prays for its deletion.
NC: 2025:KHC:12467-DB
8. Considering the factual aspects and the overall
circumstances in the matter, this Court is inclined to waive the
costs as imposed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the
following order is passed:
Order
(i) Writ Appeal is dismissed.
(ii) Cost of Rs.50,000/- as imposed by learned Single
Judge is deleted.
(iii) The appellant-Institution is directed to comply the
directions of learned Single Judge within eight weeks
from today.
(iv) No order as to costs.
9. In view of the order passed in Writ Appeal No. 57 of 2024,
the contempt proceedings in CCC No. 361 of 2024 do not survive
for consideration and are accordingly disposed as not surviving for
the time being.
Sd/-
(N. V. ANJARIA)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
