Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 22139 (KAR)

SMT.LAVANYA S v. JANATHA EDUCATION SOCIETY

WP/9101/2025 · 2025-03-28

R Nataraj

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13330 WP No. 9101 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 9101 OF 2025 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. LAVANYA S., WIFE OF KARTHIK D.V., AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS WORKING AS WARDEN, GIRLS HOSTEL, RAJAJINAGAR, R/AT NO.59/1, 17TH CROSS, 15TH MAIN, J.C NAGAR, KURUBARAHALLI, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560086, …PETITIONER (BY SMT. JAYALAKSHMI K.B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. JANATHA EDUCATION SOCIETY DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD, NEXT TO ORION MALL, RAJAJINAGAR, II STAGE, BENGALURU-560 055 REP BY SECRETARY H.G BALAGOPAL 2. THE PRINCIPAL, VIVEKANANDA DEGREE COLLEGE WOMEN COLLEGE OF ARTS, SCIENCE, COMMERCE, MANAGEMENT AND PG STUDIES, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD, NEXT TO ORION MALL, RAJAJINAGAR, II STAGE, BENGALURU-560 055. Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13330 WP No. 9101 of 2025 3. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, JANATHA EDUCATION SOCIETY, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD, NEXT TO ORION MALL, RAJAJINAGAR, II STAGE, BENGALURU-560 055 4. SMT. ESHWARAMMA, NEWLY APPOINTED AS WARDEN, BANGARPET, VIVEKANANDA DEGREE COLLEGE WOMEN COLLEGE OF ARTS, SCIENCE, COMMERCE, MANAGEMENT AND PG STUDIES, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD, NEXT TO ORION MALL, RAJAJINAGAR, II STAGE, BENGALURU-560 055. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 17.03.2025 PASSED IN REF.NO.JES/1805/2024-25 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT VIDE 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 challenged an order bearing No.JES/1805/24-25 dated 17.03.2025 passed by respondent No.1 transferring her as an Accounts Assistant. 2. The petitioner contends that respondent No.1 is a Society registered under the provisions of Karnataka Societies - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13330 WP No. 9101 of 2025 Registration Act, 1960. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 was granted aid by the State Government. The petitioner joined services of the respondent No.2 as a Warden on 08.02.2014. After completion of her probationary period, the respondent No.1 declared her as a permanent employee on 19.09.2016. When things stood thus, the respondent No.1 informed her to continue as Warden till the end of December, 2024. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 23.09.2024 to continue her even after December, 2024. The respondent No.1 without considering the request of the petitioner, transferred her in terms of the impugned order. The petitioner is therefore, before this Court challenging the order of transfer. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as per the transfer policy in force in the respondent No.1, the petitioner cannot be transferred and assigned some other work that the petitioner is not proficient in. The petitioner therefore contends that the impugned transfer order is incorrect and falls foul of the transfer guidelines of the respondent No.1. 4. A perusal of the impugned transfer order shows that it is passed by the respondent No.1, which is a society - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13330 WP No. 9101 of 2025 registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. It is not known how the respondent No.1 can be treated as a State for the purpose of exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach the competent officer under Section 131 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983. 6. Office is directed to return the certified copy of the impugned order to the learned counsel for the petitioner after retaining a photocopy. 7. It is needless to mention that the time consumed in pursuing this writ petition shall be deducted while calculating limitation applicable to a Revision Petition that may be filed before the appropriate authority. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE PMR List No.: 3 Sl No.: 1