IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MAY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI W.P. NO.36193 OF 2010 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
MISS.GANGAMMA P. U. D/O. P. S. UTHAIAH AGED AOUT 60 YEARS, ASSISTANT TEACHER GOVERNMENT P. U. COLLEGE MADIKERI KODAGU DISTRICT (BY SRI.V.LAKSHMINARAYA, ADV.) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT EDUCATION DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001 2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 3. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 4. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS MYSORE DIVISION MYSORE 5. THE VICE PRINCIPAL … PETITIONER COMPOSITE JUNIOR COLLEGE MADIKERI KODAGU DISTRICT ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SRIDHAR N HEGDE, ADV. FOR R-1 TO R-4 NOTICE TO R-5 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT SL.C4 (1) R. APPLICATION NO.651/2010/2010-
11 DATED 7.7.2010 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F AND ETC.
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Petitioner is an Assistant Teacher, Government P.U. College, Madikeri, Kodagu District. Having regard to the fact that petitioner is a Government servant, writ petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, writ petition is transferred to the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal on the score that writ petition is pending consideration since 2010 r/w decision of this Court in the case of M.S. Subbe Gowda Vs. Principal Secretary, Dept. of Social Welfare, Government of Karnataka in W.P. No.4090/2012 decided on 07.01.2015 and in the case of Shiv Raj Singh Vs. The Additional Chief Secretary, Forest Ecology and Environment Department, Government of Karnataka in W.P. No.21735/2012 decided on 16.01.2015 reported in 2015 SCC Online KAR 1954 and the relevant para (in W.P. No.4090/2012) reads as under:
It is therefore crystal clear that the Tribunals will function as the only Court of first instance in respect of the areas of law for which they have been constituted and even where any challenge is made to the vires of legislation, excepting the legislation under which Tribunal has been set up, in such cases also, litigants will not be able to directly approach the High Court overlooking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The aforesaid propositions have been repeated again by the Constitution Bench (in L. Chandra Kumar case).
5. In view of the said repeated and authoritative pronouncement by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court, the approach made to this High Court by the petitioner for the first time in support of his service disputes over which the State Administrative Tribunal has jurisdiction is not legally sustainable. The principles laid down in L. Chandra Kumar’s case virtually embody a rule of law and in view of Article 141 of the Constitution, the same is binding on the High Court.
6. Having regard to the proposition laid down by the Apex Court and as petitioner has already retired from service after attaining age of superannuation, I am of the view that the writ petition be transferred to the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal for disposal in accordance with law. Registry to transmit writ papers to Tribunal within two months.
2. Recently, Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shiva Prasad Biradar Vs. Karnataka Lokayuktha and others in Writ Appeal No.200715/2018 disposed off on 11.03.2019 held that grievance of the Government servants, if any, will have to be agitated before the appropriate Tribunal in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of L.Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261.
3. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed off for statistical purpose.
Registry is hereby directed to transmit the writ papers to the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal forthwith.
Sd/- JUDGE BS