- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8569-DB CCC No. 549 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.549 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. G SHIVARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS S/O LATE GOVIGOWDA ALLIAS BILIGOWDA R/O GOWDAGERE VILLAGE AND POST CHANNAPATNA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 108. 2. VASANTHI M.M. AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS W/O. HEMANTHAPPA R/O: NO.5, PIPELINE ROAD SOLAPURADAMMA, BADAVANA SUNKADA KATTE, BANGALORE-560 091. 3. PREMALATHA K.S. AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS W/O. RAMESHAIAH L. CHIKKINAHALLI VILLAGE NAGAVARA POST, CHANNAPATNA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-571 608. Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8569-DB CCC No. 549 of 2024 4. T.C. RAMEGOWDA AGED 51 YEARS S/O LATE CHIKKAPAPAIAH THIMMANAYAKANAHALLI ARALERI POST, MALUR TALUK KOLAR - 563 130. 5. VIRUPAKSHA T.K. AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS S/O. KENCHAIAH V. R/O: THAGGIHALLI DODDAVASAHOSAHALLI POST MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMKUR - 572 175. 6. LAKKAMUTHAIAH R. AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS S/O. LATE RANGAHANUMAIAH R/O: 576/22, SRI LAKSHMI RANGANATHA NILAYA VINAYAKANAGARA NEAR H.P. GAS GODOWN RAMNAGARA - 562 159. 7. VENKATESHAIAH S.M. AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS S/O. MUTHARAYAPPA R/O. SINGALIKAPURA PATHAGANAHALLI (POST) HOLAVANEHALLI HOBLI, KORATAGERE TALUK TUMKUR - 572 129. 8. NAGESHA S. AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS S/O. LATE SHIVALINGAIAH L. R/O. HARUR, H. MAGENAHALLI POST CHANNAPATTNA TALUK, RAMNAGARA - 562 108. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8569-DB CCC No. 549 of 2024 9. SRIDHARA B.M. AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O. MOGANNA SETTY R/O. BEVURU, VILLAGE AND POST CHANNAPATTNA TALUK RAMANAGRA - 562 108. 10. SRINIVASA MURTHY N. AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS S/O. NARASIMAIAH C. R/O. OBALAPURE VILLAGE AND POST NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE - 562 123. 11. NAGARAJU A. AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS S/O. ANJANAPPA R/O: NO.21, 16TH CROSS, III MAIN PIPE LINE ROAD, B.H. MINI COLONY T. DASARAHALLI BANGALORE - 560 057. 12. RAMESH T. AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS S/O. NANJUNDAPPA T. R/O: POOJAR LOKESHAPPA NEAR VENUGOPALASWAMY TEMPLE ROAD, HOLALKERE CHITRADURGA - 577 526. 13. KUMARASWAMY B. AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS S/O BASAVARAJAPPA M. R/O KODI BASAVANABEEDHI HOLALKERE POST, CHITRADURGA - 577 526. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8569-DB CCC No. 549 of 2024 14. LOKESHA K.A. R/O. KANNASANDRA H. MOGENAHALLI POST CHANNAPATNA TALUK RAMANAGARA - 562 108. …COMPLAINANTS (BY SMT. JAYNA KOTHARI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI V. NAVEEN CHANDRA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI RITESH KUMAR SINGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, M.S. BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. SMT. B.B. CAUVERY COMMISSIONER THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION NRUPATUNGA ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001. 3. SHRI K.N. RAMESH STATE PROJECT DIRECTOR SARVA SHIKSHA ABHIYAAN NEW PUBLIC BUILDING - ANNEX BUILDING NRUPATUNGA ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8569-DB CCC No. 549 of 2024 4. SHRI. K.N. RAMESH STATE PROJECT DIRECTOR SAMAGRA SHIKSHANA ABHIYAN NEW PUBLIC BUILDING - ANNEX BUILDING NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. …ACCUSED 5. STATE OF KARNATAKA THE DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. ... PROFORMA RESPONDENT (BY SRI S.H. RAGHAVENDRA, AGA) ........ THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 AND THE CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS RULES, 1987 READ WITH ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO INITIATE APPROPRIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, READ WITH ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR DELIBERATE DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT DATED 02.03.2023 IN W.P.NO.50461/2019 (S-RES) PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8569-DB CCC No. 549 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN) This contempt petition is filed against the accused herein for disobeying the order of this Court dated 02.03.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.50461 of 2019. 2. In Writ Petition No.50461 of 2019, the following order has been passed by the learned Single Judge: "9. Following the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforementioned decision, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically stated that the trained candidates of D.Ed. are alone are qualified to be appointed to teach the primary education upto 4th standard and on further, it is observed that those teachers are well aware about the child psychology and have been trained under development of a child at tender age and the same is absent in so far as the B.Ed. degree is concerned, and taking into consideration the law declared by the aforementioned decisions, I am of the view that incorporating the additional qualification of B.Ed. in the impugned memorandum by the respondent Authorities is contrary to law and liable to be quashed. 10. Accordingly, I am of the view that the impugned memorandum dated 24.10.2019 (Annexure- N) and the endorsement dated 27.09.2019 produce at Annexure-M, are hereby set aside. In view of setting aside, the aforementioned official memorandums issued - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8569-DB CCC No. 549 of 2024 by the State Government, respondent Authorities are directed to re-consider the case of the petitioners for the appointment to the post of elementary course having the requisite qualification in terms of the RCI Act. The respondent parties shall complete the entire exercise within three months from the receipt of the certified copy of this order." 3. The case of the complainants is that as per the order passed in Writ Petition No.50461 of 2019, the complainants are required to possess the qualification prescribed by the Rehabilitation Council of India and not D.Ed. and in spite of them possessing the same, the accused have refused to appoint them as teachers for specially abled children and that their representations have been rejected by the accused in violation of the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.50461 of 2019 and have prayed for contempt proceedings to be initiated as against the accused. 4. Per contra, accused No.4 has filed his affidavit and contends that apart from possessing the RCI CRR number, the complainants, as per the order of this Court, in Writ Petition No.50461 of 2019 are required to possess D.Ed. qualification and that is what is prescribed by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as under the relevant regulations and as the complainants do not possess the same, their applications have been rejected. On the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:8569-DB CCC No. 549 of 2024 said ground, it is submitted that no contempt has been committed by any of the accused. 5. Perusal of the order passed in Writ Petition No.50461 of 2019 in its entirety reveals that the said writ petition was filed challenging the mandate of the respondents that the petitioners are required to possess B.Ed. qualification for being appointed as teachers to teach differently abled children. The learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition has observed that what is required as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court is that a candidate is required to possess D.Ed. qualification and not B.Ed. qualification and has quashed the notification impugned in the writ petition and has further directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for appointment to the post of elementary course having the requisite qualification in terms of the Rehabilitation Council of India Act. The order cannot be interpreted that there has been a direction issued to the respondents to appoint the petitioners, if they possess the necessary RCI RR number and do not possess the other necessary qualification of not having the necessary D.Ed. certificate or other certificates as mandated in law. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:8569-DB CCC No. 549 of 2024 6. In the instant case, we find that the respondents-accused having considered the case of the complainants as per the directions of this Court in Writ Petition No.50461 of 2019, have rejected the same. The said act cannot be considered to be in contempt of the order passed in Writ Petition No.50461 of 2019. 7. For the aforementioned reasons, the contempt petition is hereby dismissed. 8. It is needless to state that if the complainants are aggrieved of the orders passed by the accused, they are at liberty to challenge the same in the manner known to law. Sd/- (N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE hkh. List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15