Karnataka High Court

The Chairman And Ors vs Sharanappa S/O Bhimaraya Naikodi on 4 September, 2025

Author: H.P.Sandesh

Bench: H.P.Sandesh

                                              -1-
                                                       NC: 2025:KHC-K:5173-DB
                                                       WA No. 200046 of 2022


                   HC-KAR




                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                                      KALABURAGI BENCH

                          DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

                                           PRESENT
                            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
                                              AND
                              THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
                            WRIT APPEAL NO.200046 OF 2022 (S-RES)
                   BETWEEN:
                   1.     THE CHAIRMAN,
                          VIDYA VARDHAKA SANGH,
                          TALIKOTI, TQ: MUDDEBIHAL,
                          DIST: BIJAPUR - 586 214.

                   2.     THE PRINCIPAL,
                          SHRI KHASGATESHWAR COMPOSITE
                          JUNIOR COLLEGE, TALIKOTI,
                          TQ: MUDDEBIHAL,
                          DIST: BIJAPUR - 586 214.

                   3.     THE HEAD MASTER,
Digitally signed          SHRI KHASGATESHWAR K.P.M.G.C.M.,
by SACHIN
Location: HIGH
                          GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL,
COURT OF                  TALIKOTI, TQ: MUDDEBIHAL,
KARNATAKA
                          DIST: BIJAPUR - 586 214.
                                                              ...APPELLANTS
                   (BY SRI AMRESH S. ROJA, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:
                   SHARANAPPA S/O BHIMARAYA NAIKODI,
                   AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
                   R/O: BALAWAD, POST: BOMMANALLI,
                   TQ: MUDDEBIHAL, DIST: BIJAPUR - 586 206.
                                                              ...RESPONDENT

                   (BY SRI NITESH PADIYAL, ADVOCATE)
                             -2-
                                     NC: 2025:KHC-K:5173-DB
                                     WA No. 200046 of 2022


HC-KAR




     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED BY SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION
NO.205088/2015 DATED 22.10.2021, BY ALLOWING THE WRIT
PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

     THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT    ON   29.08.2025  AND  COMING   ON   FOR
'PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT', THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM:     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
           AND
           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF


                       CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)

This writ appeal is filed praying to set aside the order

dated 22.10.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in

W.P.No.205088/2015 and to allow the writ petition.

2. Factual matrix of the case of the respondent

before the Educational Appellate Tribunal, Bijapur (for

short, 'the Tribunal') while invoking Section 94(1) of the

Karnataka Education Act, 1983, in E.A.T.Appeal No.1/2014

is that, he was working as Peon and was appointed in the

year 1994 i.e., on 14.08.1994. After completion of his

probationary period, he requested for regularization of his

NC: 2025:KHC-K:5173-DB

HC-KAR

services. It is also his case that the appellants assured

approval of his appointment from the competent authority

and his request was kept in abeyance on one or the other

pretext. It is also his case that, in the year 2013, i.e., on

26.06.2013, he was refrained by the appellants from

discharging his duties. Hence, he invoked the above

provision by filing an appeal.

3. In response to the averments made in the said

appeal memorandum, the appellants filed objections

contending that the appointment of the respondent was

sent for approval by the competent authority, but the

competent authority did not approve the same by giving

reason that there was a ban on aid to the non-teaching

staff. It was also contended that the respondent got his

certificates and left the job in the year 1998 itself. It was

contended that though the proposal was sent for approval,

the same was not accepted. But, the Tribunal vide order

dated 15.07.2015 passed an order directing the appellants

to reinstate the respondent within one month, with

NC: 2025:KHC-K:5173-DB

HC-KAR

continuity of service and 50% back wages from

25.01.2014 till the date of his reinstatement as per

Annexure-D to the writ petition and copy of the order is

placed on record along with this appeal as Annexure-D.

The said order was questioned before the learned Single

Judge in W.P.No.205088/2015. The learned Single Judge,

having considered the material available on record, vide

order dated 22.10.2021 dismissed the writ petition coming

to the conclusion that the Tribunal has not committed any

error.

4. Being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal as

well as the order of the learned Single Judge passed in the

writ petition, the present writ appeal is filed.

5. The main contention of the learned counsel for

appellants before this Court is that both the Tribunal as

well as the learned Single Judge has not considered the

material on record in proper perspective. The counsel

vehemently contended that the efforts made by the

NC: 2025:KHC-K:5173-DB

HC-KAR

appellants to approve the respondent's post from the

competent authority in the year 1995 and in the year 2005

went in vain, since there was a government ban on the aid

of non-teaching staff. It is also contended that the

respondent voluntarily left the job long back. The learned

Single Judge failed to consider that the Tribunal recorded a

finding that the respondent served in the institution till

2013 referring to the oral evidence of RW.1 and passed

the impugned order. The learned counsel also contended

that in the instant case, admittedly, the respondent was

not dismissed, removed or reduced in rank nor there is an

order of punishment. Though the appeal itself is not

maintainable, the Tribunal misread the provisions and

entertained the appeal. The learned Single Judge has

failed to take note of the said fact into consideration. The

finding of the Tribunal that he was continued in service till

2013 is erroneous and both the Courts i.e., the Tribunal as

well as learned Single Judge of this Court committed an

NC: 2025:KHC-K:5173-DB

HC-KAR

error in passing the impugned orders and hence, the same

require interference of this Court.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent in his arguments vehemently contended that

when the respondent was refrained from attending the

job, an appeal was filed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal

at length discussed the material on record and framed

issues as to whether the respondent was appointed in the

year 1994 and whether he was wrongfully terminated from

service in the year 2013 and taken note of the contention

of the appellants that the respondent voluntarily left the

job in the year 1998 and even examined the issue of

limitation. Having considered the material on record

particularly, document at Exs.P1 to P9 and Exs.D12 to D6,

the Tribunal answered issue Nos.1 and 2 in affirmative,

issue Nos.3 and 4 in negative and issue No.5 party in

affirmative and rightly directed the appellants to reinstate

the respondent with continuity of service and 50%

backwages from 25.01.2014 and order of deemed

NC: 2025:KHC-K:5173-DB

HC-KAR

termination of the respondent dated 25.01.2014 is set

aside. The counsel also contended that the learned Single

Judge, while considering the material on record, taken

note of the factual aspects in paragraph-3 of the impugned

order and taken note of the grounds which have been

urged before the Tribunal and the contention taken by the

appellants and considering the material on record that

salary was paid till 2013, the Tribunal disbelieved the

version of the appellants and believed the contention of

the respondent and observed in paragraphs-7 and 8 that

the Tribunal has not committed any error and hence, it

does not require interference of this Court. Therefore, he

contends that the impugned order passed by the learned

Single Judge is just and proper. Hence, he sought to

dismiss the appeal.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the

appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent, the

points that would arise for our consideration are:

NC: 2025:KHC-K:5173-DB

HC-KAR

i. Whether the Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge have committed an error in passing the impugned orders which are called in question before this Court and whether it requires interference of this Court?

ii. What Order?

8. Having considered the pleadings of the parties,

it is not in dispute that the appellant No.1 is the

Registered Society registered under the Karnataka

Societies Registration Act, 1960. Appellant No.2 is the

Principal of Shri Khasgateshwar Composite Junior College

and appellant No.3 is the Head Master of Shri

Khasgateshwar K.P.M.G.C.M. Girls High School. It is also

not in dispute that these institutions are run by appellant

No.1-Society. It is also not in dispute that the respondent

was appointed in the year 1994 i.e., on 14.08.1994 so also

the material discloses that on completion of probation of

the respondent, a proposal was sent to the competent

authority for regularization of his appointment, but the

same was not approved. The fact that he served in the

NC: 2025:KHC-K:5173-DB

HC-KAR

institution from 1994 is also not in dispute. But the very

contention of the appellants is that the respondent left the

job voluntarily in the year 1998 is not substantiated. The

Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge taken note of

the fact that he was continued in service till he was

refrained from attending the work. The learned Single

Judge, having taken note of the oral and documentary

evidence, in paragprah-7 of the impugned order observed

that the respondent was continued in service and he has

been paid salary till 2013 and he was terminated from

service on 25.01.2014, since it is emerged during the

course of the evidence that he worked and salary was paid

till 2013.

9. The Tribunal, while considering the case of the

respondent, taken note that he was appointed in the

institution of the appellants and that he was terminated

and did not believe the contention of the appellants that

the respondent voluntarily left the job in the year 1998

while answering issue Nos.1 and 2 in affirmative and issue