1 in the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore Dated This the 10Th Day of April, 2014 B E F O R E the Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

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

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

WRIT PETITION NOS.5107-65/2014 (S-RES)

BETWEEN :

1. SRI BASAVARAJAPPA G M S/O MURIGAPPA R AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER SRI DURGAMBIKA RESIDENCIAL HIGH SCHOOL VISHWANATHANAHALLI, B. DURGA HOBLI HOLALKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

2. SRI E. GANGANAIK S/O ESWARA NAIK AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER SRI DURGAMBIKA RESIDENCIAL HIGH SCHOOL VISHWANATHANAHALLI, B. DURGA HOBLI HOLALKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

3. SRI C.M. CHANDRASHEKARACHAR S/O LATE C.H. MALLACHAR AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS WORKING AS DRAWING TEACHER SRI DURGAMBIKA RESIDENCIAL HIGH SCHOOL VISHWANATHANAHALLI, B. DURGA HOBLI HOLALKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

4. SRI VASANTHA KUMAR U S/O UMESHAPPA N.C. 2

AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER SRI DURGAMBIKA RESIDENCIAL HIGH SCHOOL VISHWANATHANAHALLI, B. DURGA HOBLI HOLALKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

5. SRI N. JAGADEESHA S/O NARASHIMHAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER SRI DURGAMBIKA RESIDENCIAL HIGH SCHOOL VISHWANATHANAHALLI, B. DURGA HOBLI HOLALKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

6. SRI M. RUDRAPPA S/O MAHESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER SRI DURGAMBIKA RESIDENCIAL HIGH SCHOOL VISHWANATHANAHALLI, B. DURGA HOBLI HOLALKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

7. SRI M. LOKESHAPPA S/O MADYA NAIK AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS WORKING AS SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT SRI DURGAMBIKA RESIDENCIAL HIGH SCHOOL VISHWANATHANAHALLI, B. DURGA HOBLI HOLALKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

8. SRI BASAVARAJU S S/O J. SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER SRI RANGANATHASWAMY RURAL HIGH SCHOOL RAMAGHATTA, HOLALKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

9. SRI MALLIKARJUNA K.R. S/O KOTRE RUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER SRI RANGANATHASWAMY RURAL HIGH SCHOOL RAMAGHATTA, HOLALKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

10. SRI B.N. LAKSHMANA S/O NEELAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER SRI RANGANATHASWAMY RURAL HIGH SCHOOL RAMAGHATTA, HOLALKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

11. SRI T.VENKATESHA S/O THIMMAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER SRI RANGANATHASWAMY RURAL HIGH SCHOOL RAMAGHATTA, HOLALKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

12. SRI JAGADEESHA S.B. S/O BASAVARAJ S AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER SRI RANGANATHASWAMY RURAL HIGH SCHOOL RAMAGHATTA, HOLALKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

13. SRI P.B. GANESHA S/O P.R. BHEEMASENA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER SRI RANGANATHASWAMY RURAL HIGH SCHOOL RAMAGHATTA, HOLALKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

14. SRI G. JAGADEESHA S/O G.E. ONKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 4

WORKING AS PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER SRI RANGANATHASWAMY RURAL HIGH SCHOOL RAMAGHATTA, HOLALKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

15. SRI REVANASIDDAPPA E S/O ESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS WORKING AS CRAFT TEACHER SRI RANGANATHASWAMY RURAL HIGH SCHOOL RAMAGHATTA, HOLALKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

16. SRI BORAPPA T.M. S/O MADAPPA T AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS WORKING AS SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT SRI RANGANATHASWAMY RURAL HIGH SCHOOL RAMAGHATTA, HOLALKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

17. SRI THIPPESWAMY H S/O HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER NAVODAYA HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL HOLALKERE CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

18. SRI REVAPPA S/O KENCHAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER NAVODAYA HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL HOLALKERE CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

19. SRI P.B. SHIVAMURTHY S/O BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS WORKING AS HEAD MASTER NAVODAYA HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL HOLALKERE CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. 5

20. SMT. P.B. PARVATHAMMA D/O BHEEMA SEN AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER NAVODAYA HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL HOLALKERE CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

21. SRI RAJAKUMARA U.R. S/O RUDRAIAH S.M. AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS WORKING AS PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER S.J.M. HIGH SCHOOL HOLALKERE CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

22. SRI K.H. SIDDALINGAPPA S/O HORAKERAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT MASTER S.J.M. HIGH SCHOOL HOLALKERE CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

23. SRI K. SIDDARAMAPPA S/O K.H. KALIVEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT MASTER S.J.M. HIGH SCHOOL HOLALKERE CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

24. SRI S.N. BASAPPA S/O NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER SRI NETHAJI SUBHASHCHANDRA BOSE HIGH SCHOOL ADANUR, HOLALKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

25. SRI MAHALINGAPPA M.P. S/O LATE MALAPPA 6

AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS WORKING AS GROUP-D EMPLOYEE BHADRA HIGH SCHOOL BHADRA COLONY, BHADRAVATHI SHIMOGA DISTRICT.

26. SRI VEERAPPA E S/O ESWARAPPA K AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER SREE JNANAGANGOTHRI H.P.S. SCHOOL HOLESIRIGERE, HARIHARA TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

27. SRI THIPPESWAMY MANCHI S/O NAGAPPA MANCHI AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER SREE JNANAGANGOTHRI H.P.S. SCHOOL HOLESIRIGERE, HARIHARA TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

28. SRI SHIVAPPA MALIGI S/O BEEMAPPA MALIGI AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER SREE JNANAGANGOTHRI H.P.S. SCHOOL HOLESIRIGERE, HARIHARA TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

29. SRI RAVI H.R. S/O RAJENDRAPPA H AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER SREE JNANAGANGOTHRI H.P.S. SCHOOL HOLESIRIGERE, HARIHARA TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

30. SRI SHIVANAPNARA BASAVARAJA S/O SHIVANAPNARA GURUBASAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER 7

SREE JNANAGANGOTHRI H.P.S. SCHOOL HOLESIRIGERE, HARIHARA TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

31. SMT. RATNAVVA S W/O NAGANAGOWDA G AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER SREE JNANAGANGOTHRI H.P.S. SCHOOL HOLESIRIGERE, HARIHARA TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

32. SRI MARUTHESHA H.R. S/O RUDRAPPA H AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS WORKING AS PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER SREE JNANAGANGOTHRI H.P.S. SCHOOL HOLESIRIGERE, HARIHARA TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

33. SRI YOGISHVARAPPA P S/O BHARAMAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER YASHASWINI HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL HARIHARA DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

34. SRI CHANDRAPPA B.G. S/O GADDIGAPPA K AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER YASHASWINI HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL HARIHARA DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

35. NAGARAJA G S/O NOORAPPA G AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER YASHASWINI HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL HARIHARA DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. 8

36. SRI RAMANA GOWDA D.B. S/O DODDABASAPPA D.B. AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER YASHASWINI HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL HARIHARA DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

37. SMT. YALLAMMA NYMATHI D/O H.M. SHASHIDHAR AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER YASHASWINI HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL HARIHARA DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

38. SMT. LALITHA C. EMMER D/O H. KOTRESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER YASHASWINI HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL HARIHARA DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

39. SRI KRISHNA NAIK N S/O NAMYA NAIK AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS WORKING AS PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER YASHASWINI HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL HARIHARA DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

40. SRI KOTRESHAPPA H S/O HALAPPA H AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER M.R.B. SCHOOL, VAGEESHA NAGARA HARIHARA DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

41. SRI PRABUSWAMY T.K. S/O VEERAPPA T.K. AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER M.K.E.T. HIGH SCHOOL HARIHAR.

42. SRI RAMAKRISHNAPPA M S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS WORKING AS HEAD MASTER SRI RENUKA HIGH SCHOOL KAIKONDRAHALLI, CARMELARAM POST BANGALORE.

43. SRI NARAYANASWAMY C S/O CHANNARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER SRI RENUKA HIGH SCHOOL KAIKONDRAHALLI, CARMELARAM POST BANGALORE.

44. SRI GIRIJASHANKAR B.N. S/O NAGENDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER SRI RENUKA HIGH SCHOOL KAIKONDRAHALLI, CARMELARAM POST BANGALORE.

45. SRI RAJANIKANTH P S/O PUTTARAJU AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER SRI RENUKA HIGH SCHOOL KAIKONDRAHALLI, CARMELARAM POST BANGALORE.

46. SRI SADANANDA M S/O MUTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS WORKING AS PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER 10

SRI RENUKA HIGH SCHOOL KAIKONDRAHALLI, CARMELARAM POST BANGALORE.

47. SRI ASHWATHANARAYANA T S/O THIRUMALAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER SRI RENUKA HIGH SCHOOL KAIKONDRAHALLI, CARMELARAM POST BANGALORE.

48. SMT. ANURADHA T W/O C.E. KESHAVA REDDY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER SRI RENUKA HIGH SCHOOL KAIKONDRAHALLI, CARMELARAM POST BANGALORE.

49. SRI NAGESHA M.K. S/O KEMPAIAH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS WORKING AS DRAWING TEACHER SRI RENUKA HIGH SCHOOL KAIKONDRAHALLI, CARMELARAM POST BANGALORE.

50. SRI GANGADHAR S.G. S/O GULLAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS WORKING AS SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT SRI RENUKA HIGH SCHOOL KAIKONDRAHALLI, CARMELARAM POST BANGALORE.

51. SRI SHIVAPPA K S/O LATE KENCHAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS WORKING AS HEAD MASTER ANJANADRI HIGH SCHOOL DODDAKANNELLI, CARMELARAM POST SARJAPURA ROAD BANGALORE. 11

52. SRI SHIVAKUMAR R S/O RUDRAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT MASTER ANJANADRI HIGH SCHOOL DODDAKANNELLI, CARMELARAM POST SARJAPURA ROAD BANGALORE.

53. SRI RAJAPPA L S/O LATE LAKSHMAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT MASTER ANJANADRI HIGH SCHOOL, DODDAKANNELLI CARMELARAM POST, SARJAPURA ROAD BANGALORE.

54. SMT. RADHAMMA C W/O MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT MASTER ANJANADRI HIGH SCHOOL, DODDAKANNELLI CARMELARAM POST, SARJAPURA ROAD BANGALORE.

55. SRI JAGADEESHWARAPPA S/O LATE BASAVANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT MASTER ANJANADRI HIGH SCHOOL, DODDAKANNELLI CARMELARAM POST, SARJAPURA ROAD BANGALORE.

56. SMT. RAJESHWARI R W/O CHINNOJI RAO AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT MASTER ANJANADRI HIGH SCHOOL, DODDAKANNELLI CARMELARAM POST, SARJAPURA ROAD BANGALORE.

57. SRI MARIYAPPA S S/O SUBBAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS WORKING AS PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER ANJANADRI HIGH SCHOOL, DODDAKANNELLI CARMELARAM POST, SARJAPURA ROAD BANGALORE.

58. SMT. MAHADEVI BASAVALINGAPPA MULAVAD W/O S.Y. TALWAR AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS WORKING AS CRAFT TEACHER ANJANADRI HIGH SCHOOL, DODDAKANNELLI CARMELARAM POST, SARJAPURA ROAD BANGALORE.

59. SRI K.R. SRINIVASAMURTHY S/O RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS WORKING AS SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT ANJANADRI HIGH SCHOOL, DODDAKANNELLI CARMELARAM POST, SARJAPURA ROAD BANGALORE. ... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI.PADMANABHA R, ADV.)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY 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 COMMISSIONER FOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE 560001. 13

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

5. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS CHITRADURGA DISTRICT CHITRADURGA.

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

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

8. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS BANGALORE NORTH KALASIPALYA BANGALORE.

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. M.S. PRATHIMA, HCGP, FOR R1 TO 8)

THESE PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO RECKON AND COUNT THE PAST SERVICE RENDERED BY THE PETITIONERS FROM THE DATE OF THEIR INITIAL APPOINTMENTS 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 14

OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL SERVICE BENEFITS, ETC.

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

ORDER

Petitioners are teaching and non-teaching staff working in different private aided 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 29.01.2014, 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. 15

2. Sri R.Padmanabha, 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, as is evident from Annexures – Z18 to Z23, the respondents have an obligation to extend the same benefit to the petitioners. He submitted that, since 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-Z17 is a legal notice and not a representation.

Submission of Sri R.Padmanabha, to treat Annexure-Z17 16

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 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 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.” 18

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 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 & 19

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 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 – Z18 to

Z23.

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

Sd/- JUDGE