IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI WRIT APPEAL NO.3396 OF 2012 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
1. FAROOQIA TEACHERS TRAINING INSTITUTE MAHADEVAPURA ROAD, UDAYAGIRI, MYSURU-570019, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL / SECRETARY, TAJ MOHAMMED KHAN.
2. RIFA-HUL-MUSLIMEEN EDUCATIONAL TRUST, FAROOQIA EDUCATIONAL COMPLEX, FAROOQIA ROAD, EIDGAH, MYSURU-570021, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TAJ MOHAMMED KHAN.
...APPELLANTS (BY SRI L.M. CHIDANANDAYYA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SMT. NIKHAT KAUSER DAUGHTER OF MUSHTAQ AHMED, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, LECTURER IN EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY, FAROOQIA, TEACHERS TRAINING INSTITUTE, MAHADEVAPURA ROAD, UDAYAGIRI, MYSURU-570 019.
2. THE DIRECTOR FOR STATE EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND TRAINING, NO.4, 100 FEET RING ROAD, BANASHANKARI 3RD PHASE, BENGALURU-560 085.
3. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY, HANS BHAVAN, WING II, NO.1, BAHADUR SHAH, ZAFAR MARG, (NEAR ITO) NEW DELHI-110 002.
4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.
5. THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION TANTRIK SHIKSHAN BHAVAN, PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI ADITHYA R. CHAKRAGIRI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1; SRI H.L. PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-3;
SRI LAKSHMINARAYANA, AGA FOR R-4 AND R-5) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25.05.2012 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.14155 OF 2011 (S-RES).
***** THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.14155 of 2011 dated 25-5-2012 allowing the petition by quashing the impugned order dated 22-2-2011 vide Annexure-J passed by the first respondent therein and remanding the matter for fresh consideration among other directions, respondents 2 and 3 therein have filed this appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is erroneous and liable to be set aside. That the first respondent namely, the writ petitioner did not possess the required qualifications for appointment. Therefore, the direction to consider her case is erroneous. The same is disputed by the respondents.
3. On hearing learned counsels, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The learned Single Judge in para- 8 of the order came to the conclusion that in terms of the proposal of the appellants vide Annexure-K dated 28-2-2011, the appellants have admitted that the petitioner possesses the requisite qualifications as prescribed by the N.C.T.E Regulations/norms. Therefore, in view of the admitted position, necessarily the case of the writ petitioner was required to be considered in terms of Annexure-K. Annexure-K is the communication by the appellants themselves. Therefore, they cannot be permitted to contend to the contrary before the appellate Court. Under these circumstances, the learned Single Judge was justified in quashing the impugned order and issuing the directions as mentioned therein. Since the entire case rests on the communication by the appellants themselves, we find no good ground to interfere with the well considered order passed by the learned Single Judge. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit, is dismissed.
Respondent No.2 is directed to comply with the order of the learned Single Judge within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE Rsk/-