IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI WRIT PETITION NOS.17430-17431 OF 2014 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI. MADHU. N. A., AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/o. LATE SRI ANDANI SETTY, R/o: NAATANAHALLI POST, K.R. NAGAR TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT-570001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASANNA.V.R., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPT. OF EDUCATION, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, CUM APPELLATE AUTHORITY, GOVT. OF KARNATAKA, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, MYSORE DISTRICT, DEPT. OF PRIMARY EDUCATION, GOVT. OF KARNATAKA, OFF: TIPPU CIRCLE, MYSORE-BENGALURU ROAD, MYSORE-570001.
4. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER, DEPT. OF PRIMARY EDUCATION, GOVT. OF KARNATAKA, PIRIYAPATTANA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT, PIRIYAPATTANA-571107.
5. SHREE DIDDIYAMMA VIDYA SAMSTHE (REGD.), KANAGALU, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, KANAGAL VILLAGE, PERIYAPATTANA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT-571107.
6. THE ZILLA PANCHAYATH, MYSORE, REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MYSORE DISTRICT, MYSORE-570001.
7. SRI. MANJUNATH S., AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: ASST. TEACHER, DIDDIYAMMA VIDYA SAMSTHE (REGD.), KANAGALU, KANAGAL VILLAGE, PERIYAPATTANA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT-571107. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SREEDHAR N HEGDE, HCGP FOR R1, R3 & R4; SRI. B.S.GAUTHAM, ADVOCATE FOR R5;
SRI. DEVARAJ R, ADVOCATE FOR R7;
R2 AND R6 SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 24.02.2014 IN REVISION PETITION NO17/2011 PASSED BY THE R-2 COMMISSIOENR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, VIDE ANNEXURE-A; AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R In the instant petitions, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.02.2014 passed in Revision Petition No.17/2011 (Annexure-A); order dated 22.12.2011 of the Deputy Director (Annexure-B); order of termination dated 11.01.2010 passed by the Management of respondent No.5 (Annexure-C) and Government Order dated 04.02.2014 (Annexure-D) by which the respondent No.5 was allowed grant-in-aid.
2. Petitioner was appointed with the respondent No.5 – Institution on 24.02.2008. Thereafter certain recommendations were made by the Deputy Director of Public Instructions, Mysuru due to non-approval of the petitioner’s appointment. Commissioner for Public Instructions remanded the matter to the Deputy Director of Mysuru to decide afresh. The Deputy Director of Public Instructions decided the petitioner’s grievance afresh on 22.12.2011 rejecting the petitioner’s claim on the score that he remained unauthorisedly absent and thereafter he has resigned the job. It is also noticed that the order of termination is dated 11.01.2010. Thus there is a dispute in respect of petitioner’s service condition as to whether he has resigned from his job or was terminated.
3. Both the issues relating to resignation dated 22.02.2010 and order of termination dated 11.01.2010 are prior to respondent No.5 – Institution obtaining grant-in-aid. In other words, as on the date of resignation or date of termination, the respondent No.5- Institution was not an aided institution. Therefore, the question of considering petitioner’s grievance with the Management by the Deputy Director of Public Instruction do not arise. Accordingly, there is no infirmity in the impugned orders at Annexures ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘D’. Thus the petitioner has not made out a case to interfere with the said orders. Petitioner is at liberty to question the validity of the order of termination dated 11.01.2010 (Annexure-C) before the appropriate forum.
4. With the above observation, writ petitions stand dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE RD