- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15860 WP No. 7784 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 7784 OF 2025 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. R. RANGADHAMAIAH S/O LATE. CHIKKA RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT WARD NO.21, ARAVINDA NAGAR, GOWRIBIDANUR, CHIKKABALLAPUR-561208. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ADINARAYAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPT. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT AND PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS (ADMINISTRATION), CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT, CHIKKABALLAPUR-562101. 3. THE NATIONAL AND RURAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION ®, M.G. ROAD, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, GOWRIBIDANUR-561208, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT. REPT. BY ITS SECRETARY. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.K.KENCHEGOWDA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15860 WP No. 7784 of 2025 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE / ORDER DATED 11.03.2025 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT VIDE ITS NO. 117/2024-25 WHICH ARE PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has called in question a letter bearing No.117/2024-25 dated 11.03.2025 issued by the respondent No.3 directing the petitioner to handover charge of the post of Vice Principal and continue as an Assistant Teacher at the respondent No.3. 2. (i) The petitioner contends that certain allegations were made against him which resulted in a complaint against him before the Manchenahalli police station. The petitioner who was the 2nd senior most teacher eligible to be promoted to the post of Principal/Vice Principal, was refused the benefit, which compelled him to approach this Court in W.P.No.20749/2021. The writ petition was allowed and the respondent No.3 was directed to fill up the post of Principal/Vice Principal in terms of the Karnataka Educational - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15860 WP No. 7784 of 2025 Institutions (Recruitment and Terms and Conditions of Service of Employees in Private Aided Primary and Secondary Educational Institutions) Rules, 1999 (for short 'Rules, 1999'). (ii) The petitioner contends that the petitioner was thereafter appointed as a Vice Principal. In the meanwhile, the enquiry against the petitioner was held and the respondent No.3 directed the petitioner to handover the charge of post of Vice Principal and to continue as the Assistant teacher at the respondent No.3. 3. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. When the learned counsel for the petitioner was informed that there was a remedy of a revision before the Director under Section 130 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order is passed violating the fundamental rights of the petitioner and without affording an opportunity to him to represent against the impugned order. He also contends that even while the enquiry was pending, the respondent No.3 has called upon the petitioner to handover charge of the post of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15860 WP No. 7784 of 2025 Vice Principal and therefore, the respondent No.3 has acted in violation of Rules, 1999. 5. If the petitioner is aggrieved by any order passed by the respondent No.3, he is bound to approach the competent authority as prescribed under Section 130 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983. A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be entertained in a routine manner, unless the petitioner is able to establish that the remedy of a revision before the Director, under Section 130 of the Karnataka Education Act, is not effective or is illusory. No reason is mentioned in the writ petition to establish that the relief before the Director of Collegiate Education is ineffective or not efficacious. 6. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is not maintainable in view of the alternative remedy available under Section 130 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. 7. The office is directed to return the impugned order to the learned counsel for the petitioner after retaining a photocopy. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15860 WP No. 7784 of 2025 8. The petitioner is granted liberty to file an appropriate revision before the authority under Section 130 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983. The time consumed in pursuing this petition shall be deducted while calculating limitation for filing a revision before the authority. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22