IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI WRIT APPEAL No.1776 OF 2012 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION OFFICE OT THE COMMISSIONER EDUCATION BENGALURU.
2. THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTORATE OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, BANGALORE REGION BENGALURU.
…. APPELLANTS (BY SRI. KIRAN KUMAR, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER) AND:
1. SMT K S UMA DEVI WIFE OF A V VENKAT KRISHNA SHASTRI AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS RESIDING AT NO 87, 4TH MAIN 1ST BLOCK 3RD STAGE, 3RD PHASE, BANASHANKARI BENGALURU-85.
2. SMKRV WOMEN’S COLLEGE 2ND BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU-11 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL.
…..RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SURESH S JOSHI, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 SRI. J PRAMOD, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION No. 14365 OF 2008 (S-RES) DATED 08.08.2011.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, ASHOK S. KINAGI. J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 8.8.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.14365 of 2008, respondents-State has preferred this appeal.
2. Parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the writ petition.
3. Petitioner filed writ petition challenging the order or direction to respondent No.1 to declare that Annexure-C dated 03.05.2008 as unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
4. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 08.08.2011 allowed the writ petition, quashed Annexure-C and directed the respondents to pay the petitioner the benefits due to her in the post that she held as Grade II Principal from the year 1999 till she attained the age of superannuation on 31.03.2006. Against the said order, the respondents-State have filed this appeal.
5. Brief facts of the case are as follows :
Petitioner was appointed on 1.7.1971 as a lecturer in second respondent-college, which is an aided college. Petitioner was promoted as a Principal of the Respondent No.2-College and was working as Grade-I Principal. She retired from service on 31.3.2006. She was not given salary and other benefits as per the Grade II cadre. Petitioner since from 1979, gave representations to the educational authorities to provide her necessary salary and other benefits. The Management of the Society under which Respondent No.2-college is being run has recommended to the authorities to give benefits claimed by her. But the authorities rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had retired from service and she was serving in a private institution and that she cannot be granted benefits of Grade II cadre as a Principal, vide order dt.3.5.2008.
i.e. Annexure-C.
6. The petitioner challenging the validity, legality and correctness of the letter order dated 3.5.2008 passed by Respondent No.1 filed W.P.No.14365 of 2008. The respondents filed statement of objections contending that the petitioner’s claim was just and proper but as there was a prohibition for promotion of the petitioner as Principal Grade II cadre and since the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation and retired on 31.3.2006, her request could not be considered.
7. The learned Single Judge after considering the entire material on record, has allowed the writ petition and quashed Annexure-C. Respondents aggrieved by the said order have filed the present writ appeal.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
9. The petitioner was qualified for promotion for the post of Principal Grade II. The Management proposed for consideration of promotion of the petitioner for the post of Principal Grade II with effect from 21.11.1999. The educational authorities approved the promotion of the petitioner as Principal Grade II with effect from 21.11.1999. The said order was not recalled by the Authority till the petitioner retired from the post of Principal Grade II cadre. When the educational authorities approved the promotion of the petitioner with effect from 21.11.1999, now the respondents are estopped to contend that the petitioner was not entitled for promotion on the ground that there was a ban. The respondent in order to substantiate the contention in regard to the ban has not produced any records. Respondent No.2-college is an aided college and the strength of the students on roll was more than 1000. Respondent No.2-college complies all the requirement for grant-in-aid.
10. As observed above, the petitioner was eligible to the post of Principal Grade II and the same was approved by the Authority as per Section 87 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 which reads as under :
“87. Qualifications, conditions of service of employees.- The State Government may after previous publication make rules regulating the recruitment and conditions of service (including rights as regards disciplinary matters) of the employees in recognised private educational institutions:
Provided that the minimum qualifications for recruitment, age of recruitment and retirement and benefits of retirement for employees in educational institutions receiving maintenance grant from the State Government shall be the same as those applicable for the corresponding category of employees, if any, in State Institutions unless otherwise prescribed.”
11. Once Aid is granted there shall be no discrimination between the employees of the aided institution and civil servants in respect of the retirement and other benefits. Benefits given to the teaching staff in the Government, College would be equally applicable to the staff working in the Government aided institution as per the aforesaid provision.
12. In the present case, the petitioner was working in an aided institution and she is equally entitled for the benefits applicable to the staff working in the Government College. The action of the respondents in rejecting the claim of the petitioner is arbitrary and illegal.
13. The learned Single Judge after considering the records was justified in allowing the writ petition by quashing Annexure-C. We do not find any grounds to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, we proceed to pass the following :
ORDER Writ appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE rs