- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5078 WP No. 3793 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO. 3793 OF 2013 (S-RES) BETWEEN: CHANDRASHEKHAR M. S/O SUBRAYA GOWDA M., AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER GRADE-II, CHOKKADI HIGH SCHOOL (GOVT. AIDED), KUKKUJADAKA POST, SULIA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574216. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VENKAT SATYANARAYAN A., ADV.) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS IN KARNATAKA, NEW PUBLIC OFFICES, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS IN KARNATAKA O/O THE COMMISSIONER, NEW PUBLIC OFFICES, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT, DAKSHINA KANNADA-574216. Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5078 WP No. 3793 of 2013 4. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, SULIA TALUK, SULIA, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574216. 5. THE MANAGEMENT CHOKKADI HIGH SCHOOL (GOVT. AIDED), KUKKUJADAKA POST, SULLIA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574216. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PRATHIBHA R.K., AGA FOR R1 TO R4 R5 IS SERVED) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 25.8.2012 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 4 TO CONSIDER THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER FOR PROMOTION TO THE POST OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER, GRADE-I. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT ORAL ORDER The petitioner, a Physical Education Teacher Grade-II of 5th respondent-Chikkodi High School is before this Court, challenging Annexure-D dated 25.08.2012 internal communication from second respondent to the 3rd respondent wherein it is communicated that B.P.Ed and M.P.Ed. degree certificates obtained from Bharathiya - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5078 WP No. 3793 of 2013 Shiksha Parishad, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh could not be considered for extending any benefits. 2. Heard Smt.Prathibha, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Perused the writ petition papers. 3. The petitioner is working as Physical Education Teacher Grade-II in the 5th respondent-Institution. He was appointed as Physical Education Teacher Grade-II on his qualification C.P.Ed. Thereafter, the petitioner appears to have acquired B.P.Ed. Degree from Bharathiya Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh. It is stated in the writ petition that Physical Education Teachers Grade-II are entitled to promotion to the cadre of Physical Education Teacher Grade-I on acquiring B.P.Ed. degree. It is further stated that the petitioner would be entitled for promotion on acquiring B.P.Ed. degree. Therefore, the clarification Annexure-D would affect his service condition. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5078 WP No. 3793 of 2013 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate Smt.Prathibha G.K. referring to the statement of objections filed on behalf of the State Government would submit that there is no cause of action to challenge the said internal communication between respondent Nos.2 and 3 and further submits that on obtaining clarification from University Grants Commission, the said clarification is issued stating that Bharathiya Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh is not a recognized under the University Grants Commission. 5. Annexure-D which is under challenge is internal communication from the second respondent to third respondent. There is no cause of action for the petitioner to challenge the said clarification. The petitioner’s case for promotion is not rejected on the said ground so as to challenge the said clarification. Moreover, the said clarification is issued based on the clarification obtained from University Grants Commission in terms of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5078 WP No. 3793 of 2013 Annexure-R3. Annexure-R3 enlists the Institutions which are not recognized by the University Grants Commission. 6. In the light of the above, I am of the view that there is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the writ petition stands rejected. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE MPK CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55