IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR W. P. Nos.45736-45737/2015 (S-RES) BETWEEN 1. SRI. BOMMALINGESHWARA VIDYA SAMSTHE (R) REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SRI. BOMMAIAH LINGA SWAMY S/O SRI.S.B.MAHALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURIST 2. SMT.PANKAJA K.S.
W/O SRI. MANJUNATHA D/O SRI. SURAPPA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS OCC: ASSISTANT TEACHER BOTH ARE R/AT SHIDLEKONA GOPALA DEVARAHALLI POST SIRA TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572125. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M.P. SRIKANTH-ADV FOR SRI. PARTHASARATHI M. S-ADV) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION M.S.BUILDING DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560001.
2. THE ADDL. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION M.S.BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560001.
3. THE COMMISSIONER PRE-UNIVERSITY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT 18TH CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD MALLESWARAM BANGALORE-560003.
4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR PRE-UNIVERSITY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT TUMKUR DISTRICT TUMKUR-567706 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. E.S. INDIRESH-AGA) THESE WPs ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH CONDITION NO.2 AS PROVIDED TO THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED:14.7.2009 PASSED BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNEXURE-B.
THESE WPs COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING- B GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate.
2. The petitioner is before this court being aggrieved by the order passed by the Annexure-L on Revision Petition 28/2014. It is seen that the respondent authority has adopted a hyper technical view that the petition cannot be considered as a review petition filed under Section 132 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for the sake of brevity) as the petition is preferred under the provisions of Section 131 of the Act and has refused to consider the issue on merits and subsequently rejected the same.
3. In the considered opinion of this court, adoption of such a hyper technical view by an authority which is required to look into the facts of the case cannot be appreciated. The respondent is an authority empowered to enter upon and render a factual finding and hence, in the considered opinion of this court, the impugned order is a non speaking order and requires to be interfered with. Accordingly, the same is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the second respondent who shall consider and dispose off the same, the Revision Petition 28/2014 as one preferred under Section 132 of the Act. The second respondent shall expedite the hearing and dispose of the Revision Petition at any rate the second respondent shall endeavor to complete the hearing and dispose of the same within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order subject to petitioner not seeking any adjournment.
The writ petition is disposed off in the above terms.
Sd/- JUDGE SS-CT Chs