IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R. DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO.9059 OF 2018 (S-PRO) BETWEEN SRI.GANAPATHI PARAMESHWAR NAYAK S/O LATE PARAMESHWAR NAYAK, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, PRINCIPAL, MALLIKARJUNA PRE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, SIDDAR-581 339, KARWAR TALUK, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT.
(BY SRI M P SRIKANTH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI ASHOKA P, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT PRIMARY & SECONDARY EDUCATION, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, PRIMARY AND HIGHER EDUCATION, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001 ... PETITIONER 3. THE DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF PRE UNIVERSITY BOARD, 18TH CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-560 003.
4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR PRE-UNIVERSITY EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF PRE UNIVERSITY, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, KARAWARA-581 309 5. THE PRESIDENT/SECRETARY MALLIKARJUNA EDUCATION SOCIETY, SIDAR-581 339, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT.
6. DR.PRAKASH BOMMANNA NAYAK S/O LATE BOMMANNA NAYAK, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS LECTURER IN KANNADA, MALLIKARJUNA PRE-UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, SIDDAR-581 339 UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. M.S.PRATHIMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4 SRI MADANGOWDA N PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR M/S R KOTHWAL & S H KAZI LEX PIONEERS, ADVOCATES FOR R6 NOTICE TO R5 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD:22.2.2018 PASSED BY THE R-1 ON REVIEW PETITION ED 34 DGW 2018 PREFERED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R-1 VIDE ANNEXURE-P AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
Though the matter is coming up for ‘Hearing on Interlocutory Application’, with the consent of the learned counsels on both the sides the matter is heard and disposed of finally.
2. The petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in English in the Pre-University College run by the respondent No.5 - Mallikarjuna Education Society. The institution is admitted to grant-in-aid as on 30.12.1993 and the appointment of the petitioner was also admitted to grant-in- aid by order of the Government dated 30.12.1993. It is contended by the petitioner that the institution is a Linguistic Minority Institution and was declared so by order dated 10.01.1994 by the Director of Pre–University Education. The person who was the Principal of the institution having passed away, the post of Principal fell vacant on 13.03.2014. The management of the institution passed a resolution on 15.03.2014 appointing the petitioner as the Principal and an order in that regard was issued on 18.03.2014, promoting the petitioner as Principal of the institution. Being aggrieved, the respondent No.6 herein filed a Revision Petition under Section 131 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 before the State Government. By order dated 18.12.2017, the Revision Petition was allowed and the appointment of the petitioner as Principal of the institution was set aside. The State Government also ordered that respondent No.6 herein shall be appointed as the principal by way of promotion. The petitioner herein filed a review petition before the government seeking review of the order passed in the Revision Petition. By order dated 15.2.2018, the Principal Secretary of the Department of Education, while observing that minority institution is not bound by the Rules and Regulations in the matter of appointment and promotion of the teacher, stayed the operation of the order dated 18.12.2017. Thereafter notice was once again issued to the respondent No.6. After respondent No.6 entered appearance and filed objections, on 22.2.2018, the Principal Secretary directed that “the matter be posted for orders and any written arguments/objections/decisions of the court may be submitted within 10 days. Interim stay vacated.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Principal Secretary vacated the interim stay without assigning any reason and therefore the petitioner is before this court.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.6 submits that the Principal Secretary, before vacating the interim order of stay has observed that respondent No.6 herein is senior to the petitioner and therefore on that ground the interim stay was vacated. The learned counsel therefore seeks to justify the impugned order dated 22.02.2018.
5. Having heard the learned counsels and on perusing the writ papers, this Court is of the opinion that the question as to whether the respondent No.5 is a Minority Institution and whether the Rules and Regulations governing the appointment and promotion of teachers and principal would apply to the Institution are all questions to be answered by the State Government in the review petition. It is seen that when the order of stay was granted on 05.02.2018, the Principal Secretary has observed that the respondent institution being a Minority Institution, the Rules and Regulations did not apply to the institution and therefore an order of stay was granted. However, while vacating the interim stay no palpable reasons are assigned. Moreover, it is a matter where State Government has to decide as to whether the institution is a Minority Education Society and thereafter proceed to decide the matter on merits.
6. At this juncture, if the matter is kept pending before this Court it would neither be in the interest of the institution nor the other parties. Therefore, while setting aside the impugned order dated 22.02.2018, the parties are relegated to the State Government, where the matter has to be decided in accordance with law. At this juncture, the respondent No.6 submits that respondent No.6 is due to retire from the service shortly and therefore a direction be issued to the state government to decide the review petition as expeditiously as possible.
7. Petition is allowed. Impugned Order dated 22.02.218 is quashed and set aside. Respondent No.1 before whom the review petition is pending is directed to hear the parties and dispose of the review petition within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
KLY/ SD/- JUDGE