IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT APPEAL NO.2232 OF 2019 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT EDUCATION DEPARTMENT M.S.BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001 2. THE DIRECTOR PRE-UNIVERSITY EDUCATIONAL DEPARTMENT PALACE ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR PRE-UNIVERSITY EDUCATIONAL DEPARTMENT GOVT. JUNIOR COLLEGE BUILDING TUMKUR – 572 101 (BY SHRI I.THARANATH POOJARY, AGA) AND:
SRI.K.GOVINDAPPA S/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/O SHIVAPURA POST GUBBI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 101 (BY SHRI S.N.BHAT, ADVOCATE) ---
... APPELLANTS ... RESPONDENT THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.06.2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT IN W.P.NO.53860/2014.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Heard the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. It is not in dispute that the respondent was appointed as a lecturer with effect from 10th July 1994. The challenge in the writ petition filed by the respondent was to the order dated 3rd February 2009 by which the appointment of the respondent was approved from the date of the order i.e. 3rd February 2009. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has directed that the approval shall relate back to the date of the appointment of the respondent.
3. The learned AGA submitted that the decision relied upon by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 4 has not laid down any proposition of law and the same is decided in the facts of the case. He submitted that there is a direction issued to pay arrears which was not warranted.
4. We have considered the submissions. We have perused the order dated 3rd February 2019. The order does not record any reasons why the appointment of the respondent which was admittedly made on 10th July 1994 could not be approved from the date of the appointment. No reasons have been brought on record to show that the appointment from 10th July 1994 was not valid. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was right in issuing a direction that the approval shall relate back to the date on which the respondent was appointed. As regards the payment of arrears, the direction in the impugned order to the State Government is to consider the request for payment of arrears. As far as the payment of arrears is concerned, there is no positive direction issued and the direction is to consider the case of the respondent in accordance with law.
5. We do not find any reason to interfere with the discretionary order passed by the learned Single Judge. Subject to what is observed above, the appeal is dismissed.
The pending interlocutory applications stand disposed of.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE AHB