- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9732 WP No. 2252 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 2252 OF 2019 (EDN-RES) BETWEEN: SRI BASAWESHWARA EDUCATION SOCIETY REP.BY ITS PRESIDENT KOLALA,KORATAGERE (T) TUMAKURU-5672 140 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRINIVAS.C.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DEPT. OF PREUNIVERSITY EDUCATION REP.BY ITS DIRECTOR/COMMISSIONER, P.U.BOARD OFFICE,18TH CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 003. 2. S SIDDAPPA LECTURER IN ENGLISH, BASAWESHWARA P.U.COLLEGE, KOLALA,KORATAGERE (T) TUMAKURU-572 140. 3. SRI ATAVI SIDDALINGESHWARA EDUCATION SOCIETY REP.BY ITS PRESIDENT, CHIKKATHOTTILUKERE, TUMAKURU-572 128. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. MAMATHA SHETTY, AGA FOR R-1, SRI. SUNIL KUMAR PATEL, ADVOCATE FOR R-2, SRI. M.NARAYAN BHAT ADVOCATE FOR R-3) THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUITON OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE INSTRUCTION LETTER DTD.5.7.2018 AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. Digitally signed by LEELAVATHI S R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9732 WP No. 2252 of 2019 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:- " a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or direction by quashing the instruction in Letter No. PAPUSHI/SIBBANDHI-3/UU44/60/2007-08 dated: 05.07.2018, at Annexure-A; b) Any other appropriate writ or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity." 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the 2nd respondent was working as a lecturer in the petitioner - college and he was relieved from the services of the petitioner - college vide relieving letter at Annexure-D dated 25.02.2008 as per the order passed dated 19.02.2008 at Annexure-C and transferred from the petitioner- college to the 3rd respondent - college. Subsequently, when the 2nd respondent attempted to join the services of 3rd respondent - College, the 3rd respondent - College - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9732 WP No. 2252 of 2019 refused to permit him to join the services on the ground that there was in interim order in an appeal filed by one Smt.Shanthakumari, who was in turn transferred from the 3rd respondent - college to the petitioner - college. Thereafter, the said appeal filed by Smt.Shanthakumari was allowed by the appellate authority, thereby setting aside her transfer order, as a result of which, the 2nd respondent reverted back to the petitioner - college and rejoined the services of the petitioner-college on 30.07.2008. Under these circumstances, during the period from 25.02.2008 to 29.07.2008, having regard to the transfer order which prevented him to continue the work in the petitioner - college and in view of the interim order of stay passed in the appeal filed by Smt.Shanthakumari, the 2nd respondent did not work as lecturer either in the petitioner - college or 3rd respondent - college. It is therefore clear that the reasons for the petitioner - college or 3rd respondent - college in not permitting the 2nd respondent from working at either college were beyond the control of the petitioner - college or 3rd respondent - college and consequently, the question of fastening any liability to pay any salary during the period from 25.02.2008 to 29.07.2008 on either the petitioner or 3rd respondent would not arise in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9732 WP No. 2252 of 2019 4. It is also relevant to state that since the 2nd respondent did not work as a lecturer during the aforesaid period, even on the ground of equity, the 2nd respondent would not be entitled to seek any payment of salary especially when he subsequently retired from service. It is therefore clear that despite the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the 1st respondent clearly fell in error in directing both the petitioner and 2nd respondent to jointly and severally pay salary for the aforesaid period though the 2nd respondent did not work as lecturer in either of the colleges during the aforesaid period and as such, the impugned communication at Annexure-A deserves to be quashed. 5. In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER (i) Petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned communication at Annexure-A dated 05.07.2018 issued by the 1st respondent is hereby quashed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE Srl.