- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3612-DB RP No. 148 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL REVIEW PETITION NO. 148 OF 2022 BETWEEN: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION NEW PUBLIC OFFICES NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 3. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION NEW PUBLIC OFFICES NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 101 5. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT -572214 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. DEVARAJ C.H., GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by CHANNEGOWDA PREMA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3612-DB RP No. 148 of 2022 AND: 1. SRI. C. MALLESH S/O LATE CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS WORKING AS HEAD MASTER KANAKADASA HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL HULIYAR, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT AND R/AT. SHIVA NILAYA OPP. TO SUB-INSPECTOR QUARTERS VIJAYANAGAR, HULIYAR CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 214 2. SRI. HUCHEERAPPA S/O LATE CHANNABASAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS WORKING AS HEAD MASTER SRI. SIDDARAMESHWARA LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL YALANADU, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT AND R/AT. KENKERE VILLAGE BARADHALAPALA, KENKERE POST HULIYAR, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 214 3. THE SECRETARY KANAKADASA HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL HULIYAR, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 218 4. THE SECRETARY SRI. SIDDARAMESHWARA LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL YALANADU, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3612-DB RP No. 148 of 2022 TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 218 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DEVARAJ N., ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 TO R4 - SERVED) THE GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER HAS FILED THE ABOVE REVIEW PETITION UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING THIS HONBLE COURT TO (a) TO ALLOW THE REVIEW PETITION BY REVIEWING THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 09.08.2021 IN WRIT APPEAL No.63/2021, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) This review petition is filed seeking review of the judgment in W.A.No.63/2021. 2. Heard the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the review petitioners. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3612-DB RP No. 148 of 2022 3. It is contended by the learned Additional Government Advocate that the writ petition came to be allowed by the judgment dated 05.07.2018. It is submitted that the writ petition was part of a batch of nearly hundred writ petitions and as such, there occurred some delay in filing the appeal. It is therefore contended that since the other appeals from the common judgment are pending, the judgement may be reviewed and the delay may be condoned, so that the matter can be considered along with the connected cases. 4. We notice the contention that there was a proper explanation for the delay and that there are several other appeals pending, had all been raised before the Bench and that the aspects have been specifically considered as well. The reasons stated by the appellants for seeking condonation of delay of 597 days was specifically considered by the Bench and it was found that there was absolutely no reasons stated for condoning the delay of 597 days. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3612-DB RP No. 148 of 2022 5. It was also noticed that the connected matters had been filed without delay and had been admitted by a co-equal Bench of the Court without any delay having been occasioned. It was after considering these aspects and referring to the case laws on the point of explanation as to delay, the Bench was pleased to dismiss the appeal on delay. 6. Though the learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the delay is to be condoned and the matter is to be heard along with the connected cases, absolutely no reason whatsoever has been stated to justify an interference with the judgment under review in the review jurisdiction. No error apparent on the face of the record or any error at all as has been pointed out. 7. We also notice that dismissal of the appeal is limited to the parties to the appeal alone and the questions of law have been left open to be decided in the batch of the appeals. We find absolutely no sustainable - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3612-DB RP No. 148 of 2022 grounds raised for reviewing the judgment. The review petition therefore fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE PN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3