IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P. S. DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION NOS.45500-45501/2018(S-RES) BETWEEN:
VISVESWARAYA EDUCATION SOCIETY (R) NEW BRIDGE ROAD, OLD TOWN BHADRAVATHI SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY.
…PETITIONER (BY SRI. VARADARAJ R HAVALDAR, ADV.) AND SMT.PADMAVATHI W/O S.B. MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS TEACHER R/O BALEMARANAHALLI D.G. HALLI POST BHADRAVATHI TALUK SHIMOGGA DISTRICT-577201.
….RESPONDENT (BY SRI.G.LAKSHMEESH RAO, ADV.) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN M.A.(EAT) NO.1/2017, BY PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSION JUDGE AT SHIVAMOGGA, INCLUDING IMPUGNED ORDERS DATED:18.09.2018 PASSED ON IA.NOS. V & VI VIDE ANNEXURE-A FOR ASCERTAINING THE FACTUAL CORRECTNESS AND LEGALITY OF THE SAME AND QUASH THE AFTER SAID IMPUGNED ORDERS DATED 18.9.2018, IN M.A.(EAT)NO.1/2017, BY PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE & SESSION SHIVAMOGGA, ON I.A.NOS.V & VI VIDE ANNEXURE-A BY ALLOWING THIS W.P. WITH COSTS AND DISMISS THE AFORESAID APPEAL M.A.(EAT) NO.1/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE & SESSION AT SHIVAMOGGA, FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard Shri.Varadaraj R Havaldar, learned advocate for the petitioner and Shri.G.Lakshmeesh Rao, learned advocate for the respondent.
2. Respondent was working as Principal in the School run by the petitioner. She was demoted to the rank of Assistant Teacher. Respondent challenged the order of demotion before the EAT, Shivamogga. In the said proceedings, respondent filed an application (I.A.No.V) seeking to lead evidence. Petitioner also filed an application (I.A.No.VI) with a prayer to dismiss the appeal before District Judge on the ground that appeal was rendered infructuous, pursuant to respondent having been terminated from service. By order dated 18.9.2018, the EAT has allowed I.A.No.V filed by respondent and rejected I.A.No.VI filed by the petitioner. Being aggrieved, petitioner is before this Court.
3. Sri.Varadaraj R. Havaldar, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that since respondent has already been terminated and initiated proceedings in M.A.(EAT) No.1/2017, she may urge all grounds in the said appeal. Further, the order passed by EAT permitting respondent to lead evidence is unsustainable because in the case of Kalpatharau Vidya Samithi v. EAT reported in ILR 1998 KAR 701 relied upon by EAT, rules which were under consideration in the said authority have been repealed.
4. Shri.G.Lakshmeesh, learned advocate for the respondent submitted that respondent was demoted without holding any enquiry. Though respondent has challenged the order of dismissal, the legality and correctness of order of demotion requires independent consideration.
5. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties, the point that requires consideration is, whether the consideration of respondent’s application (I.A.No.V) to lead evidence by the EAT requires any interference.
6. Admittedly, respondent has been demoted without holding any enquiry, which is the subject matter of M.A.(EAT) No.1/2017. The respondent has filed I.A.No.V to lead evidence which has been allowed by the Tribunal following the decision rendered in the case reported in ILR 1998 KAR 701. The Tribunal has recorded that that Tribunal should decide the case after recording fresh evidence instead of remanding the case back to the authority.
7. In the instant case, the question of remand also does not arise. No enquiry was conducted before the respondent was demoted. In the circumstances, no exception can be taken to the order passed by the EAT as evidence is necessary to determine challenge to the order of demotion.
8. Resultantly, these petitions fail and they are accordingly dismissed.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE DM