The President vs Gurushanthamurthy S
2025 Latest Caselaw 8328 Kant

Karnataka High Court

The President vs Gurushanthamurthy S on 12 September, 2025

                                                  -1-
                                                         NC: 2025:KHC:36979-DB
                                                          WA No. 1509 of 2023


                      HC-KAR




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                            DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

                                             PRESENT

                             THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

                                               AND

                               THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

                               WRIT APPEAL NO. 1509 OF 2023 (S-RES)

                      BETWEEN:

                      1.    THE PRESIDENT
                            SRI GURUMALLESHWARA
                            MAHAVIDYA SAMSTHE (REGD)
                            DEVANUR GRAMA,
                            NANJANGUD TALUK
                            MYSURU DISTRICT-571 119.

                      2.    THE SECRETARY
                            SRI GURUMALLESHWARA
                            MAHAVIDYA SAMSTHE (REGD)
Digitally signed by         DEVANUR GRAMA,
PANKAJA S
Location: HIGH              NANJANGUD TALUK
COURT OF                    MYSURU DISTRICT-571 119.
KARNATAKA

                      3.    THE PRINCIPAL
                            SRI GURUMALLESHWARA POLYTECHNIC
                            DEVANUR, NANJANGUD TALUK
                            MYSURU DISTRICT-571 119
                                                                 ...APPELLANTS
                      (BY SRI. ANIL KUMAR S, ADVOCATE)

                      AND:

                            GURUSHANTHAMURTHY S
                            S/O SUBBAPPA
                             -2-
                                     NC: 2025:KHC:36979-DB
                                      WA No. 1509 of 2023


HC-KAR




    AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
    R/AT KUNTHUR, KOLLEGAL TALUK
    CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT
                                            ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAMESH H.E, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)

    THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT
PASSED IN WP NO.18752/2011 DATED 05/10/2023, AND
THEREBY ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL AS PRAYED FOR, AND
AWARD COSTS AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF/S.

     THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:    HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
          and
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

                     ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K)

This intra Court appeal is filed by the appellants

challenging the order dated 05.10.2023 passed by the

learned Single Judge in W.P.No.18752/2011 disposing of

the writ petition.

2. The facts of the case are that the respondent

being aggrieved by his illegal termination has approached

the Educational Appellate Tribunal, which was allowed by

observing that the respondent had been terminated

without providing any opportunity and thus he was entitled

NC: 2025:KHC:36979-DB

HC-KAR

for reinstatement with continuity of service and with back-

wages and also directed the appellants to pay Rs.43,945/-

to the respondent. Against which, the appellants preferred

W.P.No.18752/2011, wherein the learned Single Judge has

confirmed the reinstatement of the respondent with 10%

backwages by construing the salary of the respondent as

Rs.7,050/-.

3. We have heard the learned counsel Sri.Anil

Kumar S. for the appellants and learned counsel Sri

Ramesha H.E., for the respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants contended

that the respondent has misappropriated the funds of the

appellant-institution and also the funds belonging to the

hostel run by the institution while working as a Manager of

the said institution. As such, after an enquiry, the

respondent's services were terminated. The appellant-

institution, being a polytechnic and ITI, is governed by the

provisions of the All India Council for Technical Education

Act, 1987 (for brevity, "the 1987 Act") and as such,

NC: 2025:KHC:36979-DB

HC-KAR

provisions of Karnataka Education Act, 1983 (for brevity,

"the 1983 Act") are not applicable and the very order

passed by the Tribunal is without jurisdiction. Further, for

the misappropriation of the funds of the institution, the

institution has rightly terminated the respondent from

service.

5. It was also contended that the evidence led by

the appellant-institution before the Tribunal also supports

the contentions raised by the appellant-institution. In such

circumstances, both the Tribunal as well as the learned

Single Judge misread the facts and evidence on record and

passed the impugned orders, which are liable to be set

aside. With these submissions, he prays to allow the

appeal.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent contended that the Tribunal, after examining

the evidence on record has rightly set aside the order of

termination passed by the appellants as the charges

leveled against the respondent have not been proved as

NC: 2025:KHC:36979-DB

HC-KAR

per law. Further, the respondent's services were

terminated by the appellant-institution without providing

him any opportunity to defend himself, in gross violation

of principles of natural justice. In such circumstances, the

Tribunal and the learned Single Judge have rightly set

aside the order of termination and reinstated the

respondent with backwages as aforesaid. Hence, there is

no perversity or illegality in the impugned order passed by

the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss

the appeal.

7. We have perused the order of the Tribunal so

also the order of the learned Single Judge and also the

records.

8. As regards the contention of the appellant-

institution that the institution, being polytechnic and ITI, is

governed by the provisions of the 1987 Act and as such,

the provisions of the 1983 Act are not applicable is

concerned, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in D.

JEEVAGAN V. THE PRINCIPAL, MEI POLYTECHNIC AND

NC: 2025:KHC:36979-DB

HC-KAR

OTHERS - ILR 2007 KAR 4870 has held that since the All

India Council for Technical Education Regulations do not

provide for any statutory regulations to resolve disputes of

the employees, such aggrieved employees of an institution

affiliated to the AICTE would have a right to approach the

Educational Appellate Tribunal.

9. The appointment of the respondent in the

appellant-institution and his tenure in the institution from

2002 to 2009 are not disputed. Further, the Tribunal has

returned a clear finding that the services of the respondent

were terminated without holding an enquiry and without

providing any opportunity to defend himself. The finding

that the employee was required to be reinstated was

affirmed by the learned Single Judge with 10% backwages

construing his pay as Rs.7,050/-. Having considered the

contentions advanced, we find no error or illegality either

in the order of the Tribunal or in the judgment of the

learned Single Judge.

NC: 2025:KHC:36979-DB

HC-KAR

10. In view of the above, we are of the view that the

learned Single Judge has rightly upheld the order of the

Tribunal by reinstating the respondent with 10%

backwages construing his salary as Rs.7,050/-. Hence,

interference with the impugned order passed by the

learned Single Judge is not called for. Accordingly, writ

appeal lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed.

SD/-

(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

SD/-

(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

PKS