IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.28169 OF 2014 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
MADAVA.G S/O GANAPATHI, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, HINDI TEACHER, S.V.S. HIGH SCHOOL, AGUMBE-577 411, THIRTHAHALLI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.
(BY SRI. U.PANDURANGA NAYAK, ADVOCATE) AND:
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS DEPUTY SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.
2 . THE COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.
3 . THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PANCHAYAT, SHIMOGA-577 201.
4 . THE SECRETARY AGUMBE EDUCATION TRUST (R) AGUME, THIRTHAHALLI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.
... PETITIONER 5 . THE HEAD MASTER S.V.S. HIGH SCHOOL, AGUMBE, THIRTHAHALLI - 577 411.
6 . THE SECRETARY, ACADEMY OF GENERAL EDUCATION, MANIPAL, UDUPI DISTRICT.
7 . G.P.KRUPA W/O RAMESH.M, DCC BANK, GOLIYANGADI KUNDAPUR TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.V.RAMESH JOIS, AGA FOR R-1 & R-2; SRI B.J.ESHWARAPPA, PANEL COUSEL FOR R-3; SRI.M.P.SRIKANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R-4 & R-7;
R-5 & R-6 ARE SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE MEMORANDUM DT. 15.10.2009 VIDE ANNEXURE-H PASSED BY R-2 IN SO FAR IT RELATES TO THE SELECTION AND APPROVAL OF APPOINTMENT OF R-7 IS CONCERNED; AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The short grievance of the petitioner who claims to be working as a temporary teacher in the fifth respondent Institution which allegedly is taken over by the sixth respondent-Society is against dismissal of his Appeal/Review by the respondent-Government vide impugned order dated 11.04.2012, a copy whereof is at Annexure-J.
2. After service of notice, the official respondents are represented by Sri. M.V.Ramesh Jois, learned AGA; respondent No.3 is represented by its panel counsel Sri. B.J.Eshwarappa, respondent Nos.4 & 7 are represented by their Panel Counsel Sri. M.P.Srikanth; respondent nos.5 & 6 despite service of notice, have chosen to remain unrepresented.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is of a considered opinion that reprieve needs to be granted to the petitioner as under, because:
(a) petitioner is a poor teacher who was working on temporary basis; his grievance is against the appointment of seventh respondent to the post in question when he too had staked his claim for such appointment; the same having been negatived, resulted into his filing an Appeal presumably u/s 130/131 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983;
(b) it is a settled legal position vide decision of the Division Bench of this Court in STATE OF KARNATAKA V. NAGAPPA, ILR 1985 KAR 2374 that an appeal cannot be dismissed on the ground of delay without giving an opportunity to the appellant to seek condonation thereof; this having not been done, there is an apparent error on the face of the record; and, (c) the appellate authority being an instrumentality of State under Article 12 of the Constitution, should not deny relief to the aggrieved citizen only on the technical ground of delay & laches, when justice is otherwise due, especially when it is nobody’s case that there is no power to condone delay.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds in part; the impugned order dated 11.04.2012 having been quashed, matter is remitted back to the first respondent for consideration afresh, in accordance with law within an outer limit of four months, after notice to petitioner.
It is open to the petitioner to file an appropriate application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, within a period of four weeks and also to furnish such other facts & documents as are required for due consideration of his Appeal/Review in question, in the meanwhile.
It is needless to mention that, the 1st respondent shall make known to the petitioner the result of his Appeal/Review immediately after it’s disposal. Delay shall be viewed seriously and as a ground for levying costs, in subsequent proceedings.
All contentions of the parties are kept open. No costs, as of now.
Sd/- JUDGE DS