Karnataka High Court
Sri Parappa I Hulakund vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 November, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15862
WP No. 103029 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 103029 OF 2023 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. PARAPPA I. HULAKUND,
AGE. 63 YEARS,
WORKED AS CRAFT AND DRAWING TEACHER
IN JANATA VIDYALAYA, SAMBRA,
BELAGAVI,
DIST. BELAGAVI.
2. SRI. M.D KARABANNAVAR,
AGE. 73 YEARS,
WORKED AS A ASSISTANT
TEACHER IN JANATA VIDYALAYA, SAMBRA,
BELAGAVI,
DIST. BELAGAVI.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. P. G. CHIKKANARAGUND, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
RAKESH S 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
HARIHAR
Location: High REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench, DEP OF LAW AND PARLIAMENTARY
Dharwad AFFAIRS, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
(PRIMARY AND SECONDARY)
M S BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560001.
3. THE ADDL COMMISSIONER FOR
PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15862
WP No. 103029 of 2023
HC-KAR
COLLEGE ROAD, DHARWAD,
4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, BELAGAVI,
DISTRICT. BELAGAVI.
5. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL IN KARNATAKA
(ENTITLEMENT AND ACCOUNTS),
PARK HOUSE, BENGALURU- 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP
FOR RESPONDENT/STATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO STRUCK
DOWN THE IMPUGNED LEGISLATION VIZ., THE KARNATAKA
EDUCATION (AMENDMENT) ACT 2015 (KARNATAKA ACT
NO.4/2015) PUBLISHED IN KARNATAKA GAZETTE DATED
09.01.2015 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT VIDE
ANNEXURE-F AS ULTRA VIRUS AS IT IS OPPOSED TO THE
ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND IT
ENCROACHES UPON THE JUDICIAL POWERS OF THE COURTS
AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO GRANT
THE BENEFIT OF ONE ADDITIONAL INCREMENT TO THE
PETITIONERS FOR HAVING PASSED KANNADA LANGUAGE
EXAMINATION OR EQUIVALENT TO IT BY ALLOWING THE WRIT
PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. ISSUE A
WRIT OF MANDAMUS OF ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE
WRIT,ORDER OR DIRECTION, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS
TO EXTEND THE BENEFIT OF THE KARNATAKA CIVIL SERVICES
(SERVICE AND KANNADA LANGUAGE EXAMINATION) RULES,
1974 READ WITH THE CIRCULAR DATED 03.11.2000 AND
12.09.2001 (PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND B) TO THE
PETITIONERS I.E., GRANT OF ONE ADDITIONAL INCREMENT
WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS TO THE PETITIONERS
AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15862
WP No. 103029 of 2023
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)
The petitioners are before this Court seeking the following
prayer.
A. Struck down the impugned legislation viz., The
Karnataka Education (Amendment) Act 2015
(Karnataka Act No.4/2015) published in Karnataka
Gazette dated 09.01.2015 passed by the 1st
respondent vide
Annexure-F as Ultra Virus as it is opposed to the
Article 14 of the Constitution of India and it
encroaches upon the judicial powers of the Courts
and consequently Direct the Respondents to Grant
the benefit of One Additional increment to the
petitioners for having passed Kannada Language
Examination or Equivalent to it by allowing the writ
petition in the interest of justice and equity.
B. Issue a writ of mandamus of any other appropriate
writ, Order or Direction, directing the respondents
to extend the benefit of the Karnataka Civil
Services (Service and Kannada Language
Examination) Rules, 1974 read with the Circular
dated 03.11.2000 and 12.09.2001 (Produced at
Annexure-A and B) to the petitioners i.e., grant of
one additional increment with all consequential
benefits to the petitioners.
C. Pass any other appropriate Order, Writ or directions
as this Hon'ble court may deem fit under the facts
and circumstances of the case in the ends of justice
and equity.
2. Heard the learned counsel Sri. P.G. Chikkanaragund,
appearing for the petitioners and the learned AGA Smt. Girija S.
Hiremath for the respondents.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15862
HC-KAR
3. The identical prayers that were sought before this
Court has been answered by the Co-ordinate Bench in W.P.
No.105439/2014 & W.P. Nos.108382-417/2014 in terms of its
order dated 24.07.2020. The order reads as follows.
14. On perusal of the material on record, this issue
has been dealt by this Court in several writ petitions. The
judgments rendered by this Court needs to be considered
in two parts. The judgments which are rendered by this
Court be fore Act No.4 of 2015 was enacted and in second
part, I have to examine the judgments rendered by this
Court subsequent to enactment of Act No.4 of 2015 which
is challenged be fore this Court. It would be useful for the
Court to examine the ratio laid down by this Court in
Sumithra P and Others Vs. State of Karnataka rendered in
W.P.No.13715/2006 c/w W.P.Nos.17236/ 2008 & 10111
to 10681 of 2019, which has exhaustively dealt with rival
contentions raised in the said writ petitions.
15. The question that was raised in the said writ
petitions was, as to whether the benefit of additional
increment can be extended to the teaching and non-
teaching sta ff of private aided educational institutions,
who had joined services be fore 02.09.1987. This Court
by relying on the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court
reported in (2002) 6 SCC 72 (State of Haryana and
Another Vs. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff
Association), AIR 1990 SC 968 (Haryana State Adhyapak
Sangh and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others),
(1996) 5 SCC 273 (State of Haryana and Others Vs.
Rajpal Sharma and Others), (1995) 4 SCC 507 (State of
H.P Vs. H.P. State Recognised and Aided Schools
Managing Committees and Others) and several other
judgments, was of the view that imparting primary and
secondary education to students is the bounden duty of
State administration, the private institutions cater to the
needs of educational opportunities. There fore, there is a
corresponding responsibility on the state Government to
ensure that in aided institutions, the teachers and other
sta ff whose appointments have been approved by the
State Government are entitled for the same emoluments
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15862
HC-KAR
as provided to their counterparts in the Government
schools. The decision of the State Government not to
extend the increment in question to the teachers and
other employees of private aided educational institutions
is patently irrational and unjust, particularly, when their
counter parts in government school are made available
with the said benefit.
16. In the light of the above said discussion, this
Court in Sumithra's case (supra) proceeded to allow the
writ petitions by issuing directions to the Government to
reconsider the matter in accordance with law.
17. The Division Bench of this Court in
W.A.Nos.2779 & 4868-5434/2013 while examining the
identical issue wherein petitioners were seeking parity
with teachers working in Government Schools, was of the
view that the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 takes into
consideration the functioning of the Government Schools
or institution as well as private aided educational
institutions. Section 49 of the Act deals with setting apart
of funds for making grants to recognized private aided
educational institutions. Section 87 of the Act deals with
qualifications, conditions of service of employees in the
Government institutions as well as the private institutions.
The Division Bench of this Court while interpreting the
provisions of Section 87 of the Act was of the view that
the State Government is empowered to make Rules
regulating recruitment and conditions of service (including
rights as regards disciplinary matters) of the employees in
recognized private aided educational institutions. The
Division Bench has also examined the proviso and was of
view that the controversy in regard to grant of increment
on passing of Kannada language examination would
squarely fall under the first portion of Section 87 of the
Act.
18. The Division Bench has extracted relevant
portion at Annexure-II and has meticulously examined the
list of benefits which are not admissible in respect of
employees of private aided educational institutions. The
Division Bench having specifically examined
corresponding Sections and Rules along with Annexure-II
was of the view that the intention of the State
Government is to grant parity to the teachers working in
all Government Schools as well as those working in
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15862
HC-KAR
private aided schools. The Division Bench was of the view
that however, this is subject to financial capacity of the
State Government and in this context a proviso has also
been inserted Clause (b) of Rule 3(1) so as to deny the
certain benefits to the employees of private aided
educational institutions. The Division Bench of this Court
while examining this aspect has recorded a categorical
finding that, if the State had intended to deny the benefit
of one incentive to the teachers and non teaching sta ff of
private aided educational institutions on passing Kannada
Language examination, the same could have been
inserted in Annexure-II of the Rules. The absence of such
an insertion in Annexure-II coupled with Section 87 of the
Act read with clause (b) of subrule (1) of Rule 3 makes it
clear that there is no intention on the part of the State
Government to deny such benefit to the teachers of aided
institutions. The Division Bench was also of the view that
the conditions of service of sta ff of private aided
educational institutions could be varied by State
Government under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3. The Division
Bench of this Court further proceeded to hold that such a
variation has not been pointed out insofar as the
employees of private aided educational institutions are
concerned.
19. On these set of reasons, the Division Bench of
this Court declined to inter fere with the order of the
learned Single Judge directing the State to grant benefit
of one increment to those teaching and non-teaching sta
ff of private aided educational institutions who had passed
Kannada Language examination on par with employees of
Government Schools.
20. After the State brought in amendment to
Section 87 of the Act by way of Act No.4 of 2015, batch of
writ petitions were filed be fore this Court in
W.P.Nos.58694-703/2014 with several connected batch of
writ petitions. These Judgments are subsequent to
enactment of impugned Act No.4 of 2015. Though the
constitutional validity of impugned Act No.4 of 2015 was
not questioned, however, this Court would find that the
respondents/State have not resisted this writ petitions by
relying on this amendment Act No.4 of 2015. This Court
relying on the Division Bench Judgment rendered in The
State of Karnataka Vs. MS.Jacintha Fernandes in
W.A.Nos.2779 & 4868-5434/2013 has allowed batch of
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15862
HC-KAR
writ petitions by holding that the employees irrespective
of either they were appointed by government schools or
private aided educational institutions and irrespective of
their obligations either to pass Kannada language
examination or not, are entitled to one additional
increment i f they have passed Kannada language
examination and with these observations, the batch of
writ petitions came to be allowed.
21. The Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in
W.P.Nos.15287-15291/2019 has allowed the writ petitions
and directed the respondents to pay one additional
increment in terms of their entitlement under Rule 6 of
1974 Rules.
22. In view of the judgments rendered by this
Court which are affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court be
fore the impugned Act No.4 of 2015 was enacted and also
the judgments subsequent to enactment of Act No.4 of
2015, this Court has consistently held that such benefits
which are made applicable to the Government teachers
and teaching and non teaching sta ff in Government
school should also be made applicable to the teaching and
non-teaching sta ff of private aided educational
institutions. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
W.P.Nos.19846-20413/2012 at paragraph No.12 has
observed as follows:
"12. in a normal circumstances, when this
Court is exercising its power under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India and if an order
passed by the Authority is found to be not
sustainable and even after it is quashed, an
appropriate direction would be issued to the
respondents to re-consider the case of the
petitioners. However, in the instant case, I find that
despite there being repeated pronouncements by
this Court that the petitioners, who were similarly
placed as that of the petitioners as well as the
petitioners herein, are entitled to be considered for
the benefit, the respondents have been rejecting it
on one ground or other. That apart, in view of the
decision of the Division Bench of this Court, which
has been relied upon herein, I am of the opinion
that in the facts of the present case, such a course
should not be open for the respondents for
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15862
HC-KAR
reconsideration. Therefore, the respondents are
further directed to keep in view the service
particulars of the petitioners herein and calculate
the additional increment payable to the petitioners
as has been done in the case of teachers and non-
teaching staff working in Government schools, who
are similarly placed. The said exercise shall be done
as expeditiously as possible, but not later than
three months from the date of furnishing a copy of
this order to the competent authority."
23. The next question that needs to be examined
by this Court is as to whether the impugned enactment by
the legislature would take away the judicial
pronouncement which is based on Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. Be fore I proceed to examine the
constitutional validity of impugned Act No.4 of 2015, this
Court would take judicial note of the law laid down by this
Court in the case of Dr.(Ms)B.K.Naik Vs. State of
Karnataka Min istry of Law and Parliamentary Affairs and
Others reported in ILR 2015 KAR 5236. This Court has
exhaustively dealt with impugned amendment by way of
Act No.7/2014. The finding recorded by this Court in the
above said judgments would also have a bearing on the
present impugned Act No.4 of 2015. This Court while
answering the Constitutional validity of Act No.7 of 2014
has relied on catena of judgments rendered by the
Hon'ble Apex Court. The said case was as to whether
State Government could deny the service benefits to the
employees working in institutions admitted to grant-in-
aid, though the same is extended to the employees
working in Government Schools/institutions and it would
amount to discrimination since both are discharging same
duties.
24. The Co-ordinate Bench had also an occasion to
examine the question as to whether the judgments which
have been passed by the Courts holding that the
petitioners are entitled for equal pay on par with
Government Teachers/sta ff can be nullified by bringing in
amendment to Section 87 of the Act and as to whether
such an amendment is violative of Articles 13, 14 and 16
of the Constitution of India. This Court was also required
to examine as to whether by way of impugned Ordinance,
a reasonable classi fication between two classes of
employees is not brought about, but it discriminates
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15862
HC-KAR
between two classes of employees who are similarly
placed and who have put in equal service. In the present
case on hand, the issue is in regard to extending benefit
of additional increment whereas in the above said writ
petitions, the question was in regard to providing service
benefits to the employees working in the institutions
admitted to grant-in-aid.
25. This Court would only con fine to the
constitutional validity of Act No.4 of 2015 and while
dealing with the said issue, this Court would rely on the
findings recorded by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in
regard to constitutional validity of Ordinance which was
under challenge in the above said writ petitions and by
way of impugned Ordinance, the respondents/State made
an attempt to nullify the several judgments rendered by
this Court. In the present case on hand also
respondents/State by bringing an amendment to Section
87 of the Act by Act No.4 of 2015 have virtually made an
attempt to nullify the judgments rendered by this Court.
26. To test the validity of the Act No.4 of 2015, this
Court would rely on the judgments relied by the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in the above said writ
petitions. Keeping these principles in mind, i f the
statements, objections, reasons of the impugned
enactment i.e., Act No.4 of 2015 is examined, it is clearly
evident that the respondents/State having admitted
several private aided educational institutions for grant-in-
aid with a speci fic object of improving standard of
education and with a view to reduce burden of
management has extended salary grant to teaching and
nonteaching sta ff. The respondents/State has in terms of
Rule 6 of the Rules resolved to grant an additional
increment to the Government Servants for having passed
Kannada Language examination. The teaching and non-
teaching staff of private aided educational institutions
claiming parity, filed batch of writ petitioners be fore this
Court. This Court in the case of Loknatha Kote B. &
Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others in
W.P.Nos.25248-25302/2004, has held that an additional
increment is given to the Government servants for having
passed Kannada Language examination and on the same
analogy, there is no reason why the said benefit should
not be extended to the same class of teachers who have
passed SSLC with Kannada Language or passed Kannada
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15862
HC-KAR
examination. This Court was of the view that the
respondents/State was under an obligation to consider
the request of petitioners in the light of the aforesaid
judgments rendered in V.P.Babar and Others Vs. State of
Karnataka and Others in W.P.Nos.32163-32208/1998.
27. This Court was also of the view that despite
there being repeated pronouncement in regard to
entitlement of additional increment wherein the Courts
have been repeatedly held that the petitioners who are
similarly placed as that of employees in Government
institutions are also entitled for the benefit of additional
increment, the respondents have been rejecting it on one
ground or the other. This Court was of the view that, such
a course should not be open for the respondents for
reconsideration. In the light of the above said judgments,
this Court put at rest the issue in regard to entitlement of
additional increment by the employees of private aided
educational institutions on par with the employees of
Government institutions.
28. In the light of the above said findings, this
Court has to examine the law enacted by legislature so as
to find out, whether in fact State legislature has exercised
legislative power by merely declaring an earlier judicial
decision to be invalid and ineffective or the legislature has
altered and changed the character of legislation which
ultimately render judicial decision ine ffective. On
examination of this Act No.4/2015, it is clearly evident
that the respondent/State is not intending to remove any
de fect in the impugned legislation. In my view, it cannot
be considered as a curative legislation and that is
apparently evident on bare perusal of the impugned Act
No.4/2015. For better understanding, this Court would
cull out the preamble part of the Act No.4/2015.
"An Act further to amend the Karnataka
Education Act, 1983
Whereas it is expedient further to amend the
Karnataka Education Act, 1983 (Karnataka Act 1 of
1995) for the purposes hereina fter appearing;
Whereas the State Government has admitted
several Private Educational Institutions for grant in
aid to improve the standard o f education and
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15862
HC-KAR
reduce the burden of management by giving salary
grant to teaching and non-teaching staff.
Whereas no departmental examinations or
Kannada language examinations were prescribed
for employees in educational institutions receiving
maintenance grant from State Government.
Whereas the teaching staf f in private
management institutions admitted to grantin-aid,
claim extension of benefit of one increment for
having passed SSLC examination with Kannada as a
language or Kannada Language Examination, on
par with the pay and emoluments of Government
servants is upheld in W .P Nos.13715/2006 c/w W
.P Nos. 17236/2008 and 10111-10681/2009 dated
30.06.2009 and Writ Appeal No. 4255/2009 and
4556- 5155/2009 dated 25 .03.2010. Accordingly
Government has issued order No.ED 302 PMC
2006, dated 25.03.2011.
Whereas the Government order dated
25.03.2011 was challenged in W.P No . 19846-
20413/2012. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka
allowed the said petition on 10.08.2012, with
directions to keep in view the service particulars o f
the petitioners herein and calculate the additional
increment payable to the petitioners as has been
done in the case of teaching and non teaching staff
working in Government schools, who are similarly
placed.
Whereas the state filed appeals against the
order dated 10.08 .2012 made in W.P Nos.19846-
20413/2012, in Writ Appeal No. 2779 and 4868-
5434/2013. The Hon'ble High Court has dismissed
the said appeals on 28.08 .2013.
And, whereas the state of Karnataka
preferred the appeal in the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Special Leave Petition No . 38205-38772/2013.
Whereas C .C.C.No. 648/2013 was filed
before the Hon'ble High Court to implement the
decision of Judgment delivered in W.P.No.19846-
20413/2012 dated 10.08.2012. The petition was
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15862
HC-KAR
allowed by giving 15 days time to implement the
said orders. Since, Service examination or Kannada
Language Examination is not made obligatory for
aided school employees, there appears no
justification in sanction of additional increment for
having passed service or Kannada Language
examination to aided institution employees.
Government had never contemplated this at any
point of time . However , Government has issued
order No . ED 286 PMC 2013, dated 11.11.2013
implementing the order dated: 10.08.2012 o f the
Hon'ble High Court, subject to the Order o f the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. Nos. 74 38205-
38772/2013 which resulted in huge financial
implication on the consolidated fund of the State .
The above said Special Leave Petition Nos.
38205-38772/2013 were dismissed on 06.01.2014.
Now therefore , it is considered necessary to
review the matter and since no Service
examinations or Kannada Language Examination
has been prescribed for the employees of aided
Educational Institutions the Government decided
not to extend the additional increment payable to
the employees working in aided educational
institutions as has been done in the case of
employees working in Government Schools and for
the matters connected therewith or incidental
thereto for the purposes hereinafter appearing;"
29. If this preamble is examined, it does not
indicate that the legislature by bringing in this
amendment is intending to remove any defect.
30. The question that would arise before this Court
is whether the legislature can render judicial decision ine
ffective by enacting the law within its legislative field
fundamentally altering or changing its character
retrospectively. Be fore this Court proceeds to test the
Act, it would be useful to refer to the judgment of Hon'ble
Apex Court on this point.
31. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of
Tamil Nadu Vs. State of Kerala and Another reported in
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15862
HC-KAR
AIR 2014 SC 2407 has held that the validating law is to
be judged by applying three tests namely:
1. Whether legislature possesses a
competence over the subject matter?
2. Whether by validation the legislature has
removed the defect which the courts found in
previous to law?
3. Whether it is in consistent with the
provision of Part 3 of constitution?
32. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case
of Dr.(Ms)B.K.Naik's case (supra) relying on the judgment
of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sajjan Singh Vs State of
Rajasthan, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court to
the following effect.
"It is also urged that inasmuch as the
impugned Act purports in substance to set aside the
decisions of courts of competent jurisdiction by
which some of the Acts added to the Ninth
Schedule have been declared to be invalid, it is
unconstitutional. We see no substance in this
argument. It is hardly necessary to emphasize that
legislative power to make laws in respect of areas
entrusted to the legislative jurisdiction of different
legislative bodies, can be exercised both
prospectively and retrospectively. The constituent
power conferred by Art. 368 on the Parliament can
also be exercised both prospectively and
retrospectively. On several occasions, legislatures
think it necessary to validate laws which have been
declared to be invalid by Courts of competent
jurisdiction and in so doing, they have necessarily
to provide for the intended validation to take effect
notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order
passed by a court of competent jurisdiction to the
contrary. Therefore, it would be idle to contend fiat
by making the amendment retrospective, the
impugned Act has become constitutionally invalid."
33. This Court has to examine the power of
legislature to remove the basis of decision rendered by a
competent court in exercise of its plenary power. This
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15862
HC-KAR
Court is of the view that the said issue is no more Res-
Integra in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of State of H.P and others Vs. Yesh Pal
Garg (dead) by LRs. and others reported in (2003) 9 SCC
92. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of
Haryana and others Vs. The Karnal Co-op. Farmers'
Society Limited reported in AIR 1994 SC 1 has held as
follows:
"31. Thus, it becomes clear that a Legislature
while has the legislative power to render ineffective
the earlier judicial decisions, by removing or
altering or neutralising the legal basis in the
unamended law on which such decisions were
founded, even retrospectively, it does not have the
power to render ineffective the earlier judicial
decisions by making a law which simply declares
the earlier judicial decisions as invalid or not
binding for such power if exercised would not be a
legislative power but a judicial power which cannot
be encroached upon by a Legislature under our
Constitution."
34. On examination of the proposition of law laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the ratio laid down
by the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court while interpreting
the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in regard to
competency of legislature in exercising plenary power in
validating law, I am of the view that the proposed
amendment does not indicate that the respondents/State
has brought in amendment to cure any defect. On bare
perusal of the preamble, the respondents/State has come
in with this amendment with an intent to nullify the
judicial pronouncement and the same is forthcoming from
the relevant paragraph which reads as follows:
Now therefore, it is considered necessary to review
the matter and since no Service examinations or Kannada
Language Examination has been prescribed for the
employees of aided Educational Institutions the
Government decided not to extend the additional
increment payable to the employees working in aided
educational institutions as has been done in the case of
employees working in Government Schools and for the
matters connected therewith or incidental thereto for the
purposes hereinafter appearing.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15862
HC-KAR
35. The respondents/State by quoting the
judgments and also contempt proceedings has come with
this legislation to exclude the benefit of additional
increment to the employees of aided institutions and by
doing so, the State has virtually nullified the
pronouncements by this Courts wherein it is held in
catena of judgments that the employees of aided
institutions on parity are also entitled for additional
increment for having passed Kannada examination.
36. This Court has delivered judgments on principle
of parity. This Court while examining the rights of
employees of aided institutions has not pointed out any
defects in the existing enactment. Though it would
emerge from the scheme of constitution that legislature
can render judicial decision ineffective by enacting validity
in law within its legislative field fundamentally altering or
challenging its character retrospectively, however, the
said principle would have no application where a judicial
decision has been rendered by recording a finding of fact
and under the pretence of such plenary power, legislature
cannot nullify or neutralize the effect of judgment
rendered after ascertainment of facts by means of
evidence or material placed by the parties to such
dispute.
37. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the matter of Cauvery Disputes Tribunal
reported in 1993 SUPP(1) SCC 96(II) and in case of
Indian Aluminium Company and Others Vs. State of
Kerala reported in (1996) 7 SCC 637, the legislature is
incompetent to overrule the decision of the Court without
properly removing the base on which the judgment is
found. The impugned Act No.4 of 2015 is enacted by the
State legislature in exercise of its plenary power is sought
to be dependent on the ground that it causes financial
burden to the State. The State legislature by
incorporating Rule 3 in the impugned Act No.4 of 2015,
has sought for cancellation of sanction of additional
increment and thereby in the said Rule 3 have clearly
stated that any judgment or decree or order of any Court
would stand extinguished.
38. On examining the Rule 3 of Act No.4 of 2015,
the State legislature has virtually tried to nullify the
judgments rendered by this Court. By interpretive
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15862
HC-KAR
process, this Court has consistently held in catena of
judgments that teaching and nonteaching staff of aided
institutions to be treated on par with the teaching and
non-teaching staff of Government Institution and
accordingly the petitioners who are working in aided
institutions are also extended the benefit of additional
increment. This Court has consistently held that there
cannot be any discrimination between two class of
teachers discharging same duties and thereby this Court
held that denial of additional increment to the teachers
working in aided institutions would amount to
discrimination and the same is hit by Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.
39. The respondent - State by bringing in Act 4 of
2015, the Legislature circumvented the judgments of this
Court and by bringing in amendment by Act 4 of 2015 to
Section 87 of Karnataka Education Act, 1983 has declared
that teaching and non-teaching staff of aided institutions
are not entitled for additional increment for having passed
Kannada examination. This Court is of the view that
provisions made in the impugned Amendment Act 4 of
2015 is not sustainable and the same is illegal, besides in
violation of Doctrine of Separation of powers enshrined
under Article 50 of the Constitution. The impugned
amendment is liable to be declared to be ultravires and
entrenching upon the field earmarked for the judiciary as
it sought to nullify the judgments and orders passed by
this Court in batch of petitions. It is not the case of
removal of a defect in existing law. It passes
comprehension how the respondent - State could have
promulgated an Ordinance and consequently approved by
Act 4 of 2015. Any executive order or a legislative
enactment which inter feres with the adjudicatory process
and adjudication is an interference with the judicial
power. The fact that impugned legislation seeks directly
to nulli fy the judgments of Division Bench as well as Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in batch of petitions, it
impinges upon the judicial power of the State and is,
there fore, ultravires the Constitution. The Apex Court in
Medical Council of India vs. State of Kerala reported in
2018 (11) Scale 141, has held that State cannot be a
judge in its own cause and, there fore, cannot de fy the
decision of the judicial authorities. In the said judgment,
the Apex Court was of the view that such an action
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15862
HC-KAR
forebodes evil consequences to the federal structure
under the Constitution.
40. The proposed amendment brought in by State
legislature does not indicate that the same is enacted to
fill up any defect or loophole or lacuna through the
impugned enactment. This Court in catena of judgments
on touchstone of Article 14 of Constitution of India has
held that teaching and non teaching staff of aided
institutions cannot be discriminated. In the light of catena
of judgments rendered by this Court which are con firmed
by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court is of the view that
neither legislature nor executive has power to simply
declare the decisions of the Courts as invalid or not
binding.
41. The impugned notification runs contrary to
spirit and objects of Article 14 and I am of the firm view
that it does not pass the test of permissible classification.
The differentia by which the respondent - State has
brought in amended Act 4 of 2015 in denying additional
increment does not demonstrate any rational relation to
the object sought to be achieved by the impugned Act 4
of 2015. The Hon'ble Apex Court while reiterating the
principles rendered in leading judgment in Mohd. Hanif
Quaresh i vs. The State of Bihar (AIR 1958 SC 731) held
in State of M.P. vs. Rakesh Kohli ([2012] 6 SCC 312) that
any amendment bringing in a permissible classi fication
has to fulfill two conditions in order to pass the test:
i) The classification must be founded on an
intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or
things that are grouped together from others left
out of the group.
ii) such differentia must have rational relation
to the objects sought to be achieved by the statute
in question.
42. This Court in batch of writ petitions has held
that there is no qualitative differences between the
teachers of private aided institution and government
schools. This Court has taken judicial note that the nature
of work is identical . In this background, this Court is of
the view that Articles 14, 15 and 16 form part of a string
of constitutionally guaranteed rights. Though under Article
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15862
HC-KAR
16, there can be reasonable classi fication and
discrimination is the essence of classification, the same is
not permissible if it rests on unreasonable basis. Those
who are similarly circumstanced are entitled to an equal
treatment. Equality is amongst equals. Classification is,
there fore, to be founded on substantial differences which
distinguishes persons grouped together from those le ft
out of the groups and such a differential attributes must
bear a just and rational relation to the ob ject sought to
be achieved. The proposed amendment does not indicate
any of the ingredients discussed above.
43. At this juncture, this Court would also hold that
the tests formulated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of
Tamil Nadu Vs. State of Kerala and Another reported in
AIR 2014 SC 2407, i f applied to the present impugned
amendment Act 4 of 2015, the same has to be held
ultravires the constitution.
44. In the light of the above said discussion, I am
of the view that the impugned enactment is an attempt
by the State legislature to escape the financial liability
and the same is liable to be struck down on the ground of
irrational and arbitrariness and also violative of Article 14
of Constitution of India. Accordingly, I declare that the
impugned Act No.4 of 2015 as unconstitutional. For the
reasons stated supra, this Court would pass the following.
ORDER
a) The writ petitions are allowed.
b) The impugned Act No.4 of 2015 is quashed as
unconstitutional.
c) Respondents/State are hereby directed to
consider the case of the petitioners in regard to grant of
additional increments in accordance with law.
d) The petitioners are at liberty to submit one more
fresh representation by annexing the judgment of this
Court."
4. The learned HCGP would however contend that writ
appeals are pending before the Division Bench against the said
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15862
HC-KAR
order and there is no stay granted by the Division Bench to the
order. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to follow suite and grant
the same benefit to the present petitioners as is granted to those
petitioners in the light of the fact that petitioners are similarly
situated. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
a) The writ petition is allowed.
b) The impugned Act No.4 of 2015 is quashed as
unconstitutional.
c) Respondents/State are hereby directed to
consider the case of the petitioners in regard to
grant of additional increments in accordance
with law.
d) The petitioners are at liberty to submit one
more fresh representation by annexing the
judgment of this Court.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
RSH/CT-ASC
