• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 4 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2014 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA WRIT PETITION Nos.904-909/2014 (S-RES) BETWEEN: 1.SRI B R CHANDRASHEKHARAPPA S/O RAMEGOWDA B.T. AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS OCC: ASST. TEACHER W/AT SRI VIDYARANAYA VIDYA SAMSTHE HIGH SCHOOL AARSIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT 2.SRI S.M. RENUKARADHYA S/O VEERAIAH S.M. AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS OCC: ASST. TEACHER W/AT SRIO KARISIDDESWARA HIGH SCHOOL, DAVANAGERE TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT 3.SRI H.M. MANJUNATH S/O MULLAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS OCC: ASST. TEACHER W/AT SREE KATTEHOLEYAMMA HIGH SCHOOL, DODDAPATTANAGARE POST, BIRUR ZONE, KADUR TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT 4.SMT. LATHARADHYA M.V. D/O M. VIAYADEVARU 2 AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS OCC: ASST. TEACHER W/AT SREE KATTEHOLEYAMMA HIGH SCHOOL, DODDAPATTANAGARE POST, BIRUR ZONE, KADUR TALUK CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT 5.SRI B.V. SOMASHEKHARAPPA S/O VEERABHADRAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS OCC: LAB ASSISTANT W/AT SREE KATTEHOLEYAMMA HIGH SCHOOL, DODDAPATTANAGARE POST, BIRUR ZONE, KADUR TALUK CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT 6.SRI K.R. PRABHAKARA S/O REVANNAIAH K.S. AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS OCC: ASST. TEACHER W/A SREE SARASWATHI HIGH SCHOOL, KADUR TALUK CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT. .. PETITIONERS (By Sri CHANDRASHEKAR G M, ADV.) AND 1.THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY EDUCATION MULTISTORIED BUILDING, VIDHANA VEEDHI BANGALORE 560001 2.THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY EDUCATION NRUPATUNGA ROAD BANGALORE 560001 3 3.THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS DAVANAGERE DISTRICT DAVANAGERE 577001 4.THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN 573130 5.THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT CHICKMAGALUR 577548 6.THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER DAVANAGERE TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT 577001 7.THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER AARSIKERE TALUK TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT 573103 8.THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER KADUR TALUK, BIRUR ZONE CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT 577548 9.THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER KADUR TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT 577548. .. RESPONDENTS (By Smt.M S PRATHIMA, HCGP, FOR R1 & R2 ) 4 THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE SERVICE OF THE PETITIONER FROM THE DATE OF PETITIONER INITIAL ENTRY i.e. FROM THE DATE OF APPOINTMENT INSTEAD OF FROM THE DATE OF THEIR POSTS GRANT-IN-AID, DIRECT THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE SERVICE OF THE PETITIONERS FROM THE DATE OF ENTRY INTO SERVICE FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE PAY SCALE, SENIORITY, INCREMENT & OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL SERVICE BENEFITS AS WELL AS PENSIONARY BENEFITS & OTHER LEGALLY ENTITLED BENEFITS AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THEIR REPRESENTATION DATED 12.11.2013 VIDE ANN-J IN TERMS OF THE ORDER DATED 20.4.2011 IN W.P. 5575/2009 AND OTHER CONNECTED PETITIONS, ORDER DATED 3.11.2009 IN W.A. NO.450/2007 AND ORDER DATED 21.8.2013 PASSED IN SLP NO.22176- 186/2010 [CIVIL]. THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: O R D E R Petitioner No.1 is working as English Lecturer and petitioner No.2 is working as Asst. Teacher in Sri Vidyaranya Vidya Samsthe High School, Aarsikere Taluk, Hassan District, petitioner NO.2 is working as Asst. Teacher is working as Asst. Teacher in Sri 5 Karisiddeswara High School, Davanagere Taluk, Davanagere District, petitioners No.3 and 4 are working as Asst. Teacher and petitioner No.5 is working as Lab Assistant in Sree Katteholeyamma High School, Doddapattanagere Post, Birur Zone, Kadur Taluk and Chikmagalur district and petitioner No.6 is working as Asst. Teacher in Sree Saraswathi High School, Kadur Taluk, Chikmagalur district. According to the petitioners, their appointments were approved by respondent No.1. While approving the appointment, a condition having been imposed that the past service rendered from the date of appointment till the appointee was admitted for salary grant will be counted only for the purpose of leave and pension and thereby denied the notional annual increments, these writ petitions were filed on 7.1.2014, to direct the respondents to take into account the service of the petitioners from the date of their initial entry i.e., from the date of appointment instead of from the date of their posts were admitted to 6 grant-in-aid i.e., for the purpose of computing the pay scale, seniority and other consequential service benefits. 2. Sri G M Chandrashekar, learned advocate for the petitioners contended that the writ petitions filed by some of the teachers working in different institutions, seeking to reckon their services from the date of their initial appointments up to the date of approval for the purpose of fixation of pay scale, seniority and all other benefits having been allowed and the writ appeals and the Special Leave Petitions filed by the Government having been dismissed, the respondents have an obligation to extend the same benefit to the petitioners. He submitted that, since the respondent No.1 has not extended the said benefits to the petitioners, there is violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 3. Perused the writ record. 4. The petitioners have not made a demand with the respondents seeking to perform the legal duty. 7 Annexure - J is a legal notice and not a representation. Submission of Sri G M Chandrashekar to treat Annexure - J as a representation made by the petitioners cannot be accepted. The demand must be in writing by the petitioners with all service particulars, so that the authority can secure the relevant records and take decision in the matter. Since the petitioners have not made distinct demand with the respondents by furnishing the full service particulars, with regard to the claims made in these writ petitions, petitions filed for issue of writ of mandamus cannot be entertained. 5. In A. Prabhakara Reddy vs. The State of Karnataka and others, 1980 (1) KLJ 456, with regard to issuance of writ of mandamus to the authorities, it has been held as follows: ”9. As a rule this Court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution will issue a Writ of mandamus to the Authorities like the 1 st and 2 nd respondents if they failed to discharge their duties arising out of legal obligations, in spite of a written demand. It is only when such duties are cast on the authorities and 8 they fail to perform them, the right to seek a Writ of Mandamus arises in favour of the citizen.” 6. In Sri D.L. Chowda Reddy and others vs. The State of Karnataka, by its Secretary, Department of Primary Education and others, ILR 2013 Kar 5085, considering the object of Writ of Mandamus and criteria for issue of Writ of Mandamus, in a case relating to the identical claim , it was held as follows: “2. The object of issue of writ of mandamus is to compel performance of a legal duty. A mandamus will be issued to a person aggrieved who approaches the Court, if he makes out (i) existence of a legal right in him and a corresponding obligation on the respondent to perform a legal duty and (ii) refusal, either express or implied, by the respondent to perform such duty, in spite of a demand. Where a petition seeking mandamus is not preceded by demand for performance of a legal duty, the Court cannot entertain such a petition.” 7. In SARASWATI INDUSTRIAL SYNDICATE LTD. ETC., vs. UNION OF INDIA, AIR 1975 SC 460 , Apex Court has held as follows: “24…… As a general rule writ of mandamus will not be granted unless the party complained of has known what it was 9 he was required to do, so that he had the means of considering whether or not he should comply, and it must be shown by evidence that there was a distinct demand of that which the party seeking the mandamus desires to enforce, and that, that demand was met by a refusal.” 8. In Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation vs. Subhash Sindhi Cooperative Housing Society, Jaipur and Others, (2013) 5 SCC 427, Apex Court has held that while granting a writ, the Court must make every effort to ensure from the averments of the writ petition, there exists proper pleadings. With regard to the writ of mandamus, it has been held as follows: “24……In order to maintain the writ of mandamus, the first and foremost requirement is that the petition must not be frivolous, and must be filed in good faith . Additionally, the applicant must make a demand which is clear, plain and unambiguous. It must be made to an officer having the requisite authority to perform the act demanded. Furthermore, the authority against whom mandamus is issued, should have rejected the demand earlier. Therefore, a demand and its subsequent refusal, either by words, or by conduct, are necessary to satisfy the court that the opposite party is determined to ignore the demand of the 10 applicant with respect to the enforcement of his legal right…….” 9. The ratio of the above decision was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation and another vs. Diamond & Gem Development Corporation Limited and another, (2013) 5 SCC 470. 10. Sri G M Chandrashekar, conceded that prior to filing of these writ petitions, the petitioners did not submit individual written representations to the respondents seeking to extend the service benefits on par with the relief, which the teachers working in other institutions have got by virtue of the orders passed in other cases.

Load more

  11

Copy Link