1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AT

DATED THIS THE 10 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2014 B E F O R E

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA

WRIT PETITION NOS.11840-11873/2014 (S-RES)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI GULAB JAN SAB AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O VALLI KHAN SAB ASSISTANT TEACHER GLPS, CHIKKANAHALLI SOLUR CRC, MAGADI TALUK -562127.

2. SRI GANESH S D AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS S/O DASEGOWDA ASSISTANT TEACHER GLPS, MALLIGUNTE MAADEGOWDANAHALLI CRC, MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT -562127.

3. SRI MAHADEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS S/O REVANASIDDAIAH ASSISTANT TEACHER GHPS, KORAMANGALA SOLUR CRC, MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562127.

4. SMT. SHARADADEVI H AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS W/O. HUCCHAGANGAIAH ASSISTANT TEACHER, GLPS, DASEGOWDANAPALYA GUDEMARANAHALLI CRC, MAGADI TALUK 2

RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562127.

5. SMT. GANGAMMA M AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS W/O BASAVARAJU G R ASSISTANT TEACHER, GLPS, KAKKEPALYA BANAWADI CRC, MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 562127.

6. SRI VENKATESH G AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS S/O GOVINDAIAH, ASSISTANT TEACHER GHPS, MARIKUPPE GUDEMARANAHALLI CRC, MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562127.

7. SRI CHANDRASHEKARAIH G AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS S/O GANGAREVAIAH, P E TEACHER GHPS, GULARAVE GULUR CRC, TUMKUR TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT

8. SMT. RAJESHWARI B M AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS W/O PRABHU KUMAR R ASSISTANT TEACHER, GHPS, BADDIHALLI KYATHASANDRA CRC, TUMKUR TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT.

9. SRI NARASIMHAMURTHY H R AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS S/O LATE RAJANNA, ASSISTANT TEACHER GHPS, NARASAPURA BETTASANDRA CRC, MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 562127.

10. SRI GANGARAJAIAH V N AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS S/O LATE NANJAPPA, ASSISTANT TEACHER GHPS, HEMAPURA, BETTASANDRA CRC MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT -562127. 3

11. SRI ZIA ULLA KHAN AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS S/O DASTAGIR KHAN ASSISTANT TEACHER, GULPS, S S PALYA KUDUR CRC, MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT -562127.

12. SMT. SYEDA FARKUNDA BANU AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS W/O SYED MEER LAUIQ ALI ASSISTANT TEACHER, GUHPS, GOLLAHALLI KUDUR CRC, MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562127.

13. SRI MARIDEVRU H AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O HONNAGANGAIAH P.E. TEACHER, GHPS, YALACHAVADI KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562117.

14. SRI NAGESH K N AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS S/O K M NANJAPPA ASSISTANT TEACHER, GLPS, GORINABELE YENTAGANAHALLI CRC NELAMANGALA TALUK -562123.

15. SURESHA R AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS S/O R. RANGAIAH ASSISTANT TEACHER, GLPS MARASARAHALLI HANUMANTHEGOWDANAPALYA CRC NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562123.

16. SRI RENUKAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS S/O MALLESHAPPA, ASSISTANT TEACHER GHPS, KACHANAHALLI BOMMANAHALLI CRC, NELAMANGALA TALUK 4

BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562123.

17. SMT. SHIVAMMA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS W/O A D RAMADASAPPA ASSISTANT TEACHER, GLPS, CHIKKAPUTTAIANAPALYA HANUMANTHEGOWDANAPALYA CRC NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562123.

18. SRI S V KARIVARADAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O PUTTAIAH, ASSISTANT TEACHER GLPS, BAPUJINAGARA KULAWANAHALLI CRC, NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562123.

19. SRI M R MALLIKARJUNAIAH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS S/O G RAJASHEKARAIAH ASSISTANT TEACHER, GLPS, MACHONAYAKANAHALLI BOMMANAHALLI CRC, NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562123.

20. SMT. GULNAZ BEGUM AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS D/O LATE ABHIDH KHAN ASSISTANT TEACHER, GHPS, KUTHAGATTA SHIVAGANGE CRC, NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562123.

21. SRI RAMANJANAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS S/O HANUMANTHAIAH ASSISTANT TEACHER, GHPS, BYALAKERE BYALAKERE CRC, MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562127.

22. SRI GURURAJ C S AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O SIDDARAMAIAH 5

ASSISTANT TEACHER, GHPS, ULLENAHALLI ULLENAHALLI CRC, MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562127.

23. SRI H SOMASHEKARAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O HONNASAMAIAH ASSISTANT TEACHER, GLPS, DODDAHALLI CHIKKAHALLI CRC, MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562127.

24. RAJANNA G AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O GANGAIAH, ASSISTANT TREACHER GLPS, SRINIVASAPURA K G HONNENAHALLI CRC, NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562123.

25. SMT. R. JAYALAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS W/O V. RAMANNA, ASSISTANT TEACHER GLPS, ARALEDIBBA SHIVAGANGE CRC, NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562123.

26. SRI NAGANARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS S/O NARASIMHAIAH, ASSISTANT TEACHER GLPS, BEERAVARA SOLUR CRC, MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562127.

27. SRI G VENKATACHALAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS S/O M GOVINDAPPA, ASSISTANT TEACHER GLPS, MALLIGUNTE, MADEGOWDANAHALLI CRC MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562127.

28. SMT. JAMEEL UNISA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS W/O ANWAR SHEIKH, ASSISTANT TEACHER GUHPS, SOLUR CRC 6

MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562127.

29. SMT. CHANDRAKUMARI AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS W/O N. SETHURAM, ASSISTANT TEACHER GHPS, GUDEMARANAHALLI GUDEMARANAHALLI CRC, MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562127.

30. SMT. JAGADAMBHA R AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS W/O D.RAJANNA, ASSISTANT TEACHER GLPS, GURUVANAHALLI YENTAGANAHALLI CRC, NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT -562127.

31. SRI NAGARAJAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS S/O ANKAPPA, ASSISTANT TEACHER GLPS, MEDARADODDI CHIKKAMULUVADI CRC, KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562117.

32. SMT. ANNAPOORNA N S AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS W/O NAGABHUSHANAIAH ASSISTANT TEACHER, GHPS, MYGANAHALLI MYGANAHALLI CRC, RAMANAGARA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562159.

33. SRI PRAKASH C R AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS S/O RAMAIAH, ASSISTANT TEACHER GLPS, KOTTANAHALLI SOLADEVANAHALLI CRC, NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562123.

34. SRI CHIKKAHONNAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O GANGAPPA, ASSISTANT TEACHER GLPS, GUNGARAHALLI LAKSHMIPURA CRC, 7

RAMANAGARA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT -562159. ... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI KANCHI MAYANNA GOUTHAM & KIRAN J., ADVS.)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, M S BUILDING BANGALORE-560001.

2. THE COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS NEW PUBLIC OFFICE NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE-560001.

3. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS NEW PUBLIC OFFICE NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE-560001.

4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION RAMANAGARA RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562159.

5. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION TUMKUR TUMKUR DISTRICT-572104.

6. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT – 562 123. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. M.S. PRATHIMA, HCGP)

THESE PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF , PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE CASE OF THE PETITIONERS AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO COUNT THE PAST YEARS OF SERVICE PUT IN BY THESE PETITIONERS ON 8

HONORARY BASIS, FROM THE DATE OF THEIR INITIAL APPOINTMENT UPTO THE DATE ON WHICH THEY WERE SCREENED FOR REGULAR RECRUITMENT, BASED ON PERCENTAGE OF MARKS OBTAINED IN THE QUALIFYING EXAMINATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF SENIORITY, FIXATION OF PAY-SCALE, INCREMENTS & OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS FLOWING THEREON, IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS CONCERNED.

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Petitioner Nos.1 to 6, 8 to 12 and 14 to 34 are working as Assistant Teachers and petitioner Nos.7 and 13 are working as Physical Education Teachers. 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 07.03.2014, to direct the respondents to count the past years of service put in by these petitioners, from the date of their initial appointment upto the date on which they were screened for regular recruitment, for the purpose of 9

seniority, fixation of pay-scale, increments and other consequential service benefits.

2. Sri Kanchi Mayanna Goutham, learned advocate for the petitioners contended that the writ petitions filed by some of the Teachers working in different educational institutions seeking to reckon their services from the date of their initial appointment up to the date of approval for the purpose of fixation of pay scale, seniority and all other benefits having allowed and the writ appeals and the Special Leave Petitions filed by the Government having been dismissed, as is evident from Annexures – B,

C and D, 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.

10

4. There is an averment in para 10 of the writ petition that the petitioners approached the respondents to consider their claims but the respondents turned a deaf ear. Such a submission cannot be accepted. The demand must be in writing, so that the competent authority can secure the relevant records and take decision in the matter. Since the petitioners have not made individual demand by furnishing the full particulars with regard to the claims made in these writ petitions with the concerned respondents, these writ petitions for issue of writ of mandamus is untenable.

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 it’s under Article 226 of the Constitution will issue a Writ of mandamus to the Authorities like the 1st 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 they fail to perform them, the right to seek a Writ of Mandamus arises in favour of the citizen.” 11

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 Rajasthan State Industrial Development and

Investment Corporation and another vs. Diamond & Gem

Development Corporation Limited and another, (2013) 5

SCC 470, 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 :- 12

“22……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 applicant with respect to the enforcement of his legal right.”

8. Sri Kanchi Mayanna Goutham, conceded that prior to filing of these writ petitions, the petitioners did not submit any written representations to the respondents, 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, vide Annexures – B, C and D.

The petitioners having not made demand in writing with competent authority having the requisite authority to perform the demand and there being no opportunity for the competent authority to examine the claims and take decision in the matters, these writ petitions for issue of 13

writ mandamus to the respondents, in view of the ratio of law in the decisions, noticed supra, is not entertainable.

In the result, writ petitions are rejected. However,

liberty is reserved to the petitioners to approach office of

the authority having the requisite authority to perform the

act demanded and for extending benefits. If the competent

authority does not act in the matter within a reasonable

period, it is open to the petitioners to seek relief, if any, in

accordance with law.

Sd/- JUDGE

ca