1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 7 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2014 B E F O R E

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

WRIT PETITION NOS.4788-4842/2014 (S-RES)

BETWEEN :

1. SRI EARACHIKKAPPA S/O NARASAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS WORKING AS I/C HEAD MASTER RASTRA PRAGATHI HIGH SCHOOL PAVAGADA-561202 DISTRICT.

2. SRI H SUBASCHANDRA S/O HANUMANTHARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT MASTER RASTRA PRAGATHI HIGH SCHOOL PAVAGADA-561202 TUMKUR DISTRICT.

3. SRI K G GOVINDAIAH S/O GIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT MASTER RASTRA PRAGATHI HIGH SCHOOL PAVAGADA-561202 TUMKUR DISTRICT.

4. SRI T Y MAHALINGAPPA S/O YARAGUNTAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT MASTER RASTRA PRAGATHI HIGH SCHOOL PAVAGADA-561202 2

TUMKUR DISTRICT.

5. SRI H RAJAGOPALA S/O HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT MASTER RASTRA PRAGATHI HIGH SCHOOL PAVAGADA-561202 TUMKUR DISTRICT.

6. SMT. P. PUSHPAVATHI, W/O SHANKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT MASTER RASTRA PRAGATHI HIGH SCHOOL PAVAGADA-561202 TUMKUR DISTRICT.

7. SRI THIMMA NAIK, S/O SUBBA NAIK AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS WORKING AS PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER RASTRA PRAGATHI HIGH SCHOOL PAVAGADA-561202 TUMKUR DISTRICT.

8. SRI O. EARANNA,S/O OBALESHAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS WORKING AS DRAWING TEACHER RASTRA PRAGATHI HIGH SCHOOL PAVAGADA-561202 TUMKUR DISTRICT.

9. SRI M N RAMANJINEYA, S/O NAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS WORKING AS SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT RASTRA PRAGATHI HIGH SCHOOL PAVAGADA-561202 TUMKUR DISTRICT.

10. SRI MAHESHA M P., S/O PAPE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS WORKING AS HEAD MASTER SRI CHANNAKESHAVAMURTHY HIGH SCHOOL, KORATIKERE 3

K R PET TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.

11. SRI RAMESH GOWDA S K., S/O KALE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS WORKING AS PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER GRADE-I SRI CHANNAKESHAVASWAMY HIGH SCHOOL, KORATIKERE K R PET TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.

12. SRI RAMESHA, S/O NINGE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER SRI CHANNAKESHAVASWAMY HIGH SCHOOL, KORATIKERE K R PET TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.

13. SRI ROHITH S K., S/O SHIVALINGAIAH B AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER SRI CHANNAKESHAVASWAMY HIGH SCHOOL, KORATIKERE K R PET TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.

14. SMT B HEMALATHA W/O C S GANESHA NAYAKA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER SRI CHANNAKESHAVASWAMY HIGH SCHOOL, KORATIKERE K R PET TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.

15. SRI RAMACHANDRAPPA V., S/O VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS WORKING AS HEAD MASTER SRI RANGANATHA HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL GANGAGONDANAHALLI THANDA CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

16. SRI MARULA SIDDAIAH M J., S/O JAYAIAH M AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT MASTER SRI RANGANATHA HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL 4

GANGAGONDANAHALLI THANDA CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

17. SRI VISWANATH G C., S/O. CHIKKAVEERAPPA M AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT MASTER SRI RANGANATHA HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL GANGAGONDANAHALLI THANDA CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

18. SRI THIPPESWAMY J., S/O JAYAPPA L., AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT MASTER SRI RANGANATHA HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL GANGAGONDANAHALLI THANDA CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

19. SRI PRASANNA G., S/O GURUSWAMY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS WORKING AS IN-CHARGE HEAD MASTER SREE MURUGARAJENDRASWAMY HIGH SCHOOL, MARIYALA VILLAGE AND POST, CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT.

20. SRI S. MANJUNATH, S/O M. SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER SREE MURUGARAJENDRASWAMY HIGH SCHOOL, MARIYALA VILLAGE AND POST, CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT.

21. SRI JAYARAJ, S/O N. SUNDARA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER SREE MURUGARAJENDRASWAMY HIGH SCHOOL, MARIYALA VILLAGE AND POST, CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT.

5

22. SRI VIRUPAKSHAPPA, S/O NAGANNA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS WORKING AS CRAFT TEACHER SREE MURUGARAJENDRASWAMY HIGH SCHOOL, MARIYALA VILLAGE AND POST, CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT.

23. SRI SWAMY M R., S/O RAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS WORKING AS SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT SREE MURUGARAJENDRASWAMY HIGH SCHOOL, MARIYALA VILLAGE AND POST, CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT.

24. SMT. GEETHAMMA, D/O LATE LINGANNA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER VINAYAKA HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL MAHALAKSHIPURAM BANGALORE.

25. SMT. B KAMALA, W/O PRASAD S T AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER DEENA SEVA HIGHER PRIMARY KANNADA SCHOOL KAMALANAGARA BANGALORE.

26. SMT. THARA KUMARI H., D/O YOGISHA RAO AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER VINAYAKA EDUCATIONAL TRUST (R) J C NAGARA, KURUBARAHALLI BANGALORE -560086.

27. SRI NAGARAJU M., S/O MALLAIAH M AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS WORKING AS SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT SREE SHARANACHANNAPPASWAMY HIGH SCHOOL, LALGHATTA, TALUK RAMANAGAR DISTRICT.

6

28. SMT. GANGAMMA, D/O LATE HANUMANTHAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER IN HINDI JNANA BHARATHI HIGH SCHOOL, KUNIGAL TUMKUR DISTRICT.

29. SRI PUTTAVEERAIAH T., S/O THIMMANNA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT MASTER SRI GURUGUNDA BRAHMESHWARASWAMY BALIKA HIGH SCHOOL, PATTANAYAKANAHALLI SIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT.

30. SRI CHANDRASHEKARAPPA B V S/O VEERABHADRAPPA B P AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER NATIONAL JUNIOR COLLEGE KONANDUR, THIRTHAHALLI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

31. SRI HARIYANNA G., S/O LATE GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT MASTER SRI BASAVESWARA RURAL HIGH SCHOOL, DODDA SAGGERE, TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT.

32. SRI B G RAJANNA, S/O GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER JANATHA HIGH SCHOOL, CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE-560018.

33. SRI DAYANANDA H M S/O MURUKANNE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS WORKING AS HEAD MASTER JNANA BHARATI HIGH SCHOOL VODERAHALLI, MADHUGIRI TQ. TUMKUR DISTRICT.

7

34. SRI SHIVALINGAPPA D L S/O SHIVALINGAPPA D L AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT MASTER JNANA BHARATI HIGH SCHOOL VODERAHALLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT.

35. SRI G B LINGARAJA S/O G S BASAVARAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS WORKING AS PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER SRI GAVIRANGANATHA HIGH SCHOOL, ATTIMAGE, TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

36. SRI H RAMAIAH, S/O HANUMANTHAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS WORKING AS TEACHER MARUTHI LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL , GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT.

37. SRI R S SREEKANTAPPA S/O P SHIVALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT MASTER M.G.M. HIGH SCHOOL BYADANUR (POST)-561202 PAVAGADA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT.

38. SRI S E ERANNA, S/O ERANNA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT MASTER M.G.M. HIGH SCHOOL BYADANUR (POST)-561202 PAVAGADA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT.

39. SRI NAGAPPA U., S/O UGRAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS WORKING AS SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT M.G.M. HIGH SCHOOL BYADANUR (POST)-561202 8

PAVAGADA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT.

40. SMT. H. KAMALAMMA, W/O LATE HONNAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS WORKING AS HEAD MISTRESS PRAGATHI HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, VAJARA BEEDI RAMANAGARA TOWN.

41. SRI P S SRINIVASAN S/O LATE P R SUBBARATHNAM AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT MASTER PRAGATHI HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, VAJARA BEEDI RAMANAGARA TOWN.

42. SMT. D DAKSHAYINI, W/O C UMASHANKAR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT MISTRESS PRAGATHI HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, VAJARA BEEDI RAMANAGARA TOWN.

43. SRI H M THIRUMALESH S/O LATE MANCHAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT MASTER PRAGATHI HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, VAJARA BEEDI RAMANAGARA TOWN.

44. SRI T S PARAMASHIVAIAH S/O SIDDAMALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS WORKING AS HEAD MASTER S.B.R. HIGH SCHOOL N. RAMPURA-572223, NITTUR (POST) GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT.

45. SRI S L SIDDARAMAIAH S/O LINGANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 9

WORKING AS GROUP-D EMPLOYEE S.B.R. HIGH SCHOOL N RAMPURA-572223, NITTUR (POST) GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT.

46. SRI HONNAPPA, S/O NARASAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS WORKING AS PEON S.B.R. HIGH SCHOOL N RAMPURA-572223, NITTUR (POST) GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT.

47. SRI SIDDAPPA B., S/O MARULAPPA B AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS WORKING AS IN-CHARGE HEAD MASTER SRI BAPUJI HIGH SCHOOL SURAGIHALLI, SHIKARIPUR TALUK .

48. SRI HANUMANTHAPPA R T S/O RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER SRI BAPUJI HIGH SCHOOL SURAGIHALLI, SHIKARIPUR TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT.

49. SRI RAGHAVENDRA B N S/O BALASUBRAMANYAM N V AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER SRI BAPUJI HIGH SCHOOL SURAGIHALLI, SHIKARIPUR TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT.

50. SRI BASAVARAJPPA R U S/O RUDRAPPA U AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER SRI BAPUJI HIGH SCHOOL SURAGIHALLI, SHIKARIPUR TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT.

10

51. SRI B C PRAKASH S/O B R CHANNABASAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER S.J.M. HIGH SCHOOL CHIKKAJAJUR-577523 HOLALKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTICT.

52. SRI K S UMAPATHI, S/O K SHIVAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS WORKING AS PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER DASHARATHA RAMESHWARA HIGH SCHOOL, G N KERE, HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

53. SMT. H B USHA, W/O KALE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT MISTRESS SAHYADRI KANNADA HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, HUTHA COLONY, BHADRAVATHI-577301 SHIMOGA DISTRICT.

54. SMT. B S GANGAMMA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER VIJAYAGANGOTHRI HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, HOSADURGA CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

55. SRI RAJANNA, S/O LATE CHIKKAUGRAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS WORKING AS PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER B.E.L. HIGH SCHOOL, JALAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 013. ... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI R. PADMANABHA, ADV.) 11

AND:

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

2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE-560001.

3. THE DIRECTOR FOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY EDUCATION OFFICE OF COMMISIONER FOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE-560001.

4. THE DIRECTOR FOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY EDUCATION OFFICE OF COMMISIONER FOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE-560001.

5. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS MADHUGIRI EDUCATIONAL DISTRICT, MUDHUGIRI TUMKUR DISTRICT.

6. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA.

7. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS DAVANAGERE DISTRICT DAVANAGERE.

8. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT CHAMARAJANAGARA.

9. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS BANGALORE DISTRICT 12

K G ROAD, BANGALORE-560 009.

10. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS RAMANAGARA DISTRICT RAMANAGARA.

11. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS TUMKUR DISTRICT TUMKUR.

12. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT SHIVAMOGGA.

13. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT CHITRADURGA. ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. M.S. PRATHIMA, HCGP)

THESE PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF , PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO RECKON AND COUNT THE PAST SERVICE RENDERED BY THE PETITIONERS FROM THE DATE OF THEIR INITIAL APPOINTMENT UP TO THE DATE OF APPROVAL OF THEIR APPOINTMENT WITH AID RESPECTIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF FIXATION OF PAY SCALE, SENIORITY, INCREMENTS INCLUDING TBA, PENSIONARY BENEFITS AND OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL SERVICE BENEFITS, ETC.

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

13

ORDER

Petitioners are teaching and non-teaching staff working in private aided educational institutions.

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 28.01.2014, 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 grant-in-aid i.e., for the purpose of computing the pay scale, seniority and other consequential service benefits.

2. Sri R.Padmanabha, learned advocate for the petitioners contended that the writ petitions filed by some 14

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, as is evident from Annexures – Z28 to Z33, 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.

Annexure-Z27 is a legal notice and not a representation.

Submission of Sri R.Padmanabha, to treat Annexure-Z27 as a representation made by the petitioners cannot be accepted. The demand must be in writing by the 15

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 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, 16

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 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, 17

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

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.

9. Sri R.Padmanabha, conceded that prior to filing of these writ petitions, the petitioners did not submit 18

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 vide Annexures – Z28 to

Z33.

10. The petitioners having not made distinct 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 writ of mandamus to the respondents, in view of the ratio of law in the decisions, noticed supra, cannot be entertained.

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 19

reasonable period, it is open to the petitioners to seek relief, if any, in accordance with law.

Sd/- JUDGE

ca