IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA WRIT PETITION No.54054/2016 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SMT. SHIVAMMA W/O RANGANATHA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS AGRICULTURAL LABOURER R/O KURIHALLI DODDERI HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572132 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI GANGADHARAPPA A V, ADV.) AND:
1. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER MADHUGIRI TALUK MADHUGIRI TUMKUR DISTRICT-572132 2. SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT AND MAINTENANCE COMMITTEE FOR GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL REPRESENTED BY MEMBER SECRETARY KURIHALLI, DODDERI HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572132 3. PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER RANGAPURA GRAMA PANCHAYATH DODDERI HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572132 4. THE HEAD MISTRESS & MEMBER SECRETARY GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL KURIHALLI, DODDERI HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572132 5. SMT. MAHALAKSHMAMMA W/O JAYARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/O HOSAMANE VILLAGE DODDERI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TQ., TUMKUR DISTRICT-572132 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H T NARENDRA PRASAD, AGA. FOR R1, 2 & 4 SRI NARASIMHA RAJU, ADV. FOR R3 & 5) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO CALL FOR THEIR RECORDS AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE CASE; QUASH IMPUGNED MEMORANDUM VIDE ANNEX-E BY DECLARING THE SAME AS ILLEGAL AND OUTCOME OF MALA FIDE REASONS AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner is before this Court assailing the memorandum as at Annexure-E to the petition. In that light the petitioner is seeking issue of mandamus to direct the respondents No.1 to 4 to reappoint the petitioner to the post of second cook in connection with the preparation of mid- day meals in Government Primary School in Kurihalli, Dodderi Hobli, Madhugiri Taluk.
2. The petitioner contends that she was appointed to the vacant post of the second cook. The Chairman, School Development and Maintenance Committee (‘SDMC’ for short) appointed the petitioner to the said post during June 2006. The petitioner claims that she has been continuing in the said post from the year 2006 till 29.07.2015 when she was relieved from the services. Though while relieving the petitioner from service, it was indicated that the strength of the students in the hostel had reduced, the respondents had thereafter employed respondent No.5 as a cook and in that light since the petitioner was not continued, the petitioner is before this Court in this petition.
3. Though the respondents have not filed their objection statement, learned Government Advocate would contend that the petitioner cannot claim any right to the post. It is his submission that the petitioner was being provided the job of cook for the hostel students when the academic year commences and was being relieved when the academic year comes to an end. It is further pointed out that there was several complaints against the petitioner and on every occasion the petitioner had been warned. Further, a resolution of the SDMC dated 18.07.2016 is relied to contend that in the said proceedings all the members had opposed the continuation of the petitioner and therefore based on such resolution the communication was issued relieving the petitioner. Hence it is contended that the petitioner has no right to the post and further the conduct being such that she was not desirable to be continued has been relieved from the services. It is in that light contended that the prayer as made in the petition is not sustainable and the petition is liable to be rejected.
4. In the light of the above, what is necessary to be taken note is that the petitioner though not appointed by issue of appointment order in the nature of a permanent employment, what is necessary to be taken note is that the petitioner having worked from the year 2006 in any event cannot be disputed inasmuch as the very contention of the respondent is that she was being continued during every academic year which constitutes employment for 240 days in each year. Therefore, even if the contention of the respondent that she was being discontinued at the end of every academic year is taken into consideration, the same is only an artificial break, contrary to law and the communication dated 29.07.2015 relieving the petitioner would indicate that the petitioner has been in continuous service from the year 2006 to 2015, but only with such artificial breaks.
5. Therefore, in that circumstance, when there was requirement of a regular cook and no recruitment in that regard was being made and the petitioner was being engaged, at this point in time the respondents cannot discontinue the services of the petitioner in the manner in which it has been done. That apart the very reliance placed on the Resolution dated 18.07.2006 before this Court to contend that there were allegations against the petitioner and all the members had opposed the continuation of the petitioner would indicate that despite such allegations no enquiry has been held against the petitioner by providing opportunity. Therefore even though the relieving order dated 29.07.2015 has been worded in an innocuous manner, the contention as put forth by the respondent before this Court would indicate that a stigma would be attached on the petitioner if her services are dispensed without appropriate enquiry despite allegation of misconduct. In that circumstance, the discontinuation of the petitioner would not be justified nor is it is accordance with law.
6. However, at this point, I do not find it necessary to set aside the order at Annexure-E whereby respondent No.5 has been appointed. Notwithstanding the appointment of respondent No.5, since I am of the opinion that the petitioner has put in continuous service but with artificial breaks and further the discontinuance is contrary to the procedure laid down in law, a direction is necessary to be issued to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service and if need be, appropriate notice be issued and thereafter action be taken in accordance with law. However, until such action is taken, the petitioner cannot be prevented from working. But keeping in view the nature of employment, I do not find it appropriate to grant any other benefits. The reinstatement as ordered shall be implemented by respondents No.1 to 4 within four weeks from this date.
The petition is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE akc/bms