IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA W.P.No.11033/2016 (EDN – RES) c/w W.P.No.44268/2015 (S – RES) IN W.P.No.11033/2016:
BETWEEN:
RUKMINI H.V., W/O M.GOVINDA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, HEAD MISTRESS IN SCIENCE, SRI VAGDEVI HIGH SCHOOL, R/AT DURGI GUDI BEEDI, HIRIYUR - 577598 CHITRADURGA DISTRICT …PETITIONER (BY SRI L.GOVINDRAJU, ADV.) AND:
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF EDCUATION M S BUILDINGS, BANGALORE - 560001 REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 2 . THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560001 3 . THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS D.D.P.I. OFFICE, GAYATHRI CIRCLE, CHITRADURGA - 577599 4 . THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER MAIN ROAD HIRIYUR, HIRIYUR, CHITRADURGA- 577599 5 . THE SECRETARY SRI VAGDEVI EDUCATIONAL ASSOCIATION (REGD) LOKKAVANAHALLI ROAD, HIRIYUR, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577599 6 . GEETHA LAKSHMI D/O D.M.RAMACHANDRA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, ASSISTANT TEACHER, VAGDEVI KANNADA HIGH SCHOOL , LAKKAVANAHALLI, HIRIYUR, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 577599 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-4; SRI SUNDAR RAJ, ADV. FOR R-5;
SRI VIGNESHWAR S. SHASTRI, ADV. FOR R-6.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-2 & R-3 TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE ORDER DATED 25.08.2015 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT IN THE REVISION PETITION No.30/2014 (ED 252 SES 2014) ANNEXURE-D.
IN W.P.No.44268/2015:
BETWEEN:
SMT.GEETHA LAKSHMI D/O D.M.RAMACHANDRA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC: ASSISTANT TEACHER, VAGDEVI KANNADA HIGH SCHO0L, LAKKAVANAHALLI, HIRIYUR-577 598, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI VIGHNESHWAR S. SHASTRI, ADV.) AND:
1 . SMT.RUKMINI H.V., W/O M.GOVINDA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, HEAD MISTRESS IN SCIENCE, SRI VAGDEVI HIGH SCHOOL, R/O DURGI GUDI BEEDI, HIRIYUR-577 598, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
2 . THE PRESIDENT, SRI VAGDEVI EDUCATIONAL ASSOCIATION (REGD), LOKKAVANAHALLI ROAD, HIRIYUR-577 598, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
3 . THE SECRETARY SRI VAGDEVI EDUCATIONAL ASSOCIATION (REGD), LOKKAVANAHALLI ROAD, HIRIYUR-577 598, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
4 . THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER OFFICE OF TEH B.E.O., MAIN ROAD, HIRIYUR-577 598, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
5 . THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS D.D.P.I. OFFICE, GAYATHRI CIRCLE, CHITRADURGA-577 598.
6 . THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 002.
7 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI L.GOVINDRAJU, ADV. FOR C/R-1; SRI D.V.DESAI, ADV. FOR R-2;
SRI SUNDAR RAJ, ADV. FOR R-2 & R-3; SMT.PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R-4 TO R-7.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 25.08.2015 PASSED IN REVISION PETITION No.30/2014 (ED 252 SES 2014) BY THE R-7 AS PER ANNEXURE-E.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Since the issue involved in these matters are akin, the same are clubbed, heard together and disposed of by this common order.
2. Sri Vagdevi Educational Association is running several institutions. Smt.Geetha Lakshmi – petitioner in W.P.No.44268/2015 was appointed as Assistant Science Teacher in the year 1997 in terms of appointment order dated 25.05.1997.
Smt.Rukmini.H.V. – the first respondent in W.P.No.44268/2015 was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Science in terms of the appointment order dated 25.05.2000. It is the contention of the petitioner that the first respondent did not possess B.Ed., degree, she did not apply for the post of teacher in the High School and she acquired the B.Ed., qualification only in the year 2000 and then she made representation to the management to take her as an Assistant Teacher at Sri Vagdevi English Medium High School and her request was considered and she was appointed as Science Teacher at Sri Vagdevi English Medium High School.
3. According to the petitioner, Sri Vagdevi Kannada Medium High School and Sri Vagdevi English Medium High School are two different schools run by the same management and the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher [Science] at Sri Vagdevi Kannada Medium High School whereas the respondent No.1 was appointed as Assistant Teacher at Vagdevi English Medium High School. The name of the petitioner was found in the attendance register from 1994 to 04.09.2001. The management forwarded the name of the petitioner for approval. The respondent No.1 – Smt.Rukmini.H.V., preferred an appeal under Section 94 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 [‘Act’ for short], seeking a direction to the institution management to withdraw the list of teachers sent for approval to the Block Education Officer and to include her name in the said list for the post of the science teacher which came to be dismissed with an observation that if the appellant – Smt.Rukmini.H.V., files a memo within 15 days in the office of the Tribunal that she will urge the matter in revision, the records will be transmitted to the Authority. The respondent No.1– Smt.Rukmini.H.V., has filed a Revision Petition No.30/2014 under Sections 131 and 133 of the Act before the Government of Karnataka which has been allowed vide order dated 25.08.2015 directing the Management to recommend Smt.H.V.Rukmini’s name for the post of Assistant Teacher [science] for approval. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel Sri.Vighneshwar S. Shastri, appearing for the petitioner – Smt.Geetha Lakshmi submitted that in terms of the order passed in the appeal, no memo was submitted by the respondent No.1 as directed. The Appellate Authority had categorically fixed a time frame for the appellant therein, Smt.Rukmini.H.V., to file a memo within 15 days from the date of the order in the office of the said Tribunal that she will urge the matter in revision, then the records will be transmitted to the concerned authority. As no such memo was filed, no records were transmitted to the respondent No.7 – Authority. It is contended that the management has taken a stand in favour of the petitioner – Smt.Geetha Lakshmi in the earlier proceedings before the Appellate Authority. However, different stand has been taken now before this Court by way of filing an affidavit stating that Smt.Geetha Lakshmi was terminated on 04.09.2001 and she is working with the institution from 15.05.2009 as a part time teacher voluntarily. The respondent No.7 without applying the mind, has disposed of the revision petition without calling for the records from the Appellate Authority. It was further argued that there was no cause of action for the respondent No.1 – Smt.Rukmini.H.V., to initiate proceedings before the Appellate Authority which has culminated in the order impugned.
5. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner – Smt. Geetha Lakshmi is working regularly with the institution since 15.05.2009 as now contended by the management, is entitled for approval of her post. However, the respondent No.7 ignoring the material aspects, has directed the management to forward the candidature of Smt.Rukmini.H.V., for approval.
6. Learned counsel would fairly submit that the petitioner was unauthorizedly absent from 04.09.2001 to 15.05.2009 on account of availing the maternity leave.
7. Learned counsel Sri.Govindaraju.L, appearing for the respondent No.1 – Smt.Rukmini.H.V., would submit that on the unauthorized absence of the petitioner from the year 2001 to 2009, she is not entitled to claim for regularization. On the other hand, after the posts were invited by the management, the respondent No.1 was appointed as the Assistant Teacher [Science], duly following the procedure prescribed under the Act. The appointment order was issued to the respondent No.1 which has not been disputed by the petitioner. That being the position, the proceedings initiated under Sections 131 and 133 of the Act being different and independent, the respondent No.7 – State Government taking the independent decision in terms of Sections 131 and 133 of the Act would not invalidate the order impugned. Non filing of memo by the respondent No.1 in compliance with the order passed by the Appellate Authority would not be fatal for initiating independent proceedings under Sections 131 and 133 of the Act. After hearing the parties, duly considering the arguments advanced by both the parties, the order impugned has been passed which deserves to be confirmed.
8. In compliance with the directions issued, respondent No.3 has filed an affidavit before the Court today and the same is placed on record. In terms of the affidavit filed by the management, the petitioner Smt.Geetha Lakshmi who was working as a Science Teacher remained unauthorizedly absent from 04.09.2001 to 2008 for more than 8 years and hence, the management has terminated the services of the petitioner Smt.Geetha Lakshmi with effect from 04.09.2001 and the respondent No.1 – Smt.Rukmini.H.V., has been appointed as a teacher vide appointment letter dated 25.04.2000. It is submitted that after termination of the petitioner – Smt.Geetha Lakshmi, neither she has been continued as a regular Science Teacher or any appointment letter has been issued by the management. On the request made by Smt.Geetha Lakshmi, to provide an opportunity to serve as the Science Teacher, the petitioner has been permitted to work as the part time Science Teacher for a period of one year subject to condition that she will be relieved every year at the end of the academic year, if she opts to continue in the said post. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submits that the petitioner – Smt.Geetha Lakshmi being not appointed on regular basis, her claim for regularization would not arise.
9. I have carefully considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record.
10. It is not in dispute that the petitioner – Smt.Geetha Lakshmi was unauthorizedly absent from 04.09.2001 to 15.05.2009 for nearly 8 years on the pretext of availing maternity leave where the maternity leave sanction was for 90 days. If that being the position, the petitioner – Smt.Geetha Lakshmi having slept over the matter for more than 8 years, subsequent to the appointment of the respondent No.1 – Smt.Rukmini.H.V., as the Assistant Teacher [Science] cannot claim for regularization of her post on the ground that Smt.Rukmini.H.V., was appointed in Sri Vagdevi English Medium High School whereas she was appointed by Sri Vagdevi Kannada Medium High School. It is clear that the management is running different institutions and the appointment orders placed on record would indicate that both the petitioner as well as the respondent No.1 were appointed by the same management.
11. Initiating the proceedings under Section 94 of the Act seeking for inclusion of her name in the list of the teachers to be forwarded to the Government and the dismissal of the appeal with liberty to the respondent No.1 to file a memo and non-compliance of such an order would not come in the way of the respondent No.1 to initiate the proceedings under Sections 131 and 133 of the Act which are independent and different provisions. The order impugned would reflect that all the concerned parties were provided with ample opportunity of hearing and on analyzing the material evidence more particularly, the unauthorized absence of the petitioner for more than 8 years and the appointment of the respondent No.1 – Smt.Rukmini.H.V., on the regular basis as the Assistant Teacher [Science] and her uninterrupted services from the date of her appointment i.e., from 04.09.2001 till date of respondent No.7, State Government has directed the management to forward the name of Smt.Rukmini.H.V., for approval to the post of the Assistant Teacher [Science] which cannot be faulted with. No exception can be found in the order impugned.
Accordingly, Writ Petition No.44268/2015 stands dismissed.
In W.P.No.11033/2016, the petitioner – Smt.Rukmini.H.V., has sought for direction to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to give effect to the order dated 25.08.2015 passed by the Deputy Secretary, Education Department, the order impugned in W.P.No.44268/2015. In view of the dismissal of W.P.No.44268/2015, the petitioner in W.P.No.11033/2016 is entitled to the reliefs sought for.
The management shall forward the name of Smt.Rukmini.H.V., for approval to the Government in an expedite manner i.e., within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. On the submission of the said proposal, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall give effect to the order dated 25.08.2015, passed by the Deputy Secretary, Education Department within a period of four weeks.
W.P.No.11033/2016 is allowed accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE NC.