- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12627 WP No. 3576 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 3576 OF 2019 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. M. MAHADEVASWAMY S/O MALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, WORKING AS ARTS TEACHER, SRI GURUMALLESHWARA HIGH SCHOOL DOORA, MYSORE TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT - 570 008 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SATISH K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (PRIMARY AND SECONDARY) REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION) DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, MYSORE - 570 001 3. SRI. GURUMALLESHWARA HIGH SCHOOL, HARAVE, CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT - 571 128 REPRESENTED BY ITS HEAD MASTER 4. SRI. GURUMALLESHWARA HIGH SCHOOL DOORA GRAMA, MYSORE TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT- 570 008 REPRESENTED BY ITS HEAD MASTER Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12627 WP No. 3576 of 2019 5. SRI. CHANNABASAVIAH, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER AGED MAJOR, WORKING AS ARTS TEACHER, SRI GURUMALLESHWARA HIGH SCHOOL ADAGOOR, K.R. NAGARA TALUK, MYSORE - 571 602 6. SMT. P. CHAMPA W/O B.G. MAHADEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS WORKING AS ARTS TEACHER, SRI. GURUMALLESHWARA HIGH SCHOOL HARAVE, CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT- 571 128 7. SRI. GURUMALLESHWARA MAHAVIDYA SAMSTHE REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEVANOOR, NANJANGUD TALUK - 571 110 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NEELAKANTAPPA K. PUJAR, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2; SRI. N. JAGADISH BALIGA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.6; NOTICE IS SERVED ON RESPONDENT NOS.3, 4, 5 AND 7) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENTS PERTAINING TO THE IMPUGNED OFFICE ORDER DATED 28.11.2018 [ANNEXURE-G] AS WELL AS THE IMPUGNED MEMORANDUM DATED 27.11.2018 [ANNEXURE-M] WRONGLY MENTIONED AS 27.09.2018 AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED OFFICE ORDER DATED 28.11.2018 PASSED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT [ANNEXURE-G] AND CONSEQUENTLY, DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 TO ADMIT THE PETITIONER TO GRANT-IN-AID IN TERMS OF THE PROPOSAL DATED 12.03.2013 [ANNEXURE-B] AND 15.05.2015 [ANNEXURE-C] MADE BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT OR/ALTERNATIVELY QUASH THE IMPUGNED MEMORANDUM DATED - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12627 WP No. 3576 of 2019 27.09/11.2018 BEARING NO.G1/H.SHI.HONDANIKE/48/2018-19 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT [ANNEXURE-M] AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 TO CONSIDER THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER FOR ADMISSION TO GRANT-IN-AID AND ADMIT HIM TO GRANT IN AID IN TERMS OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 05.12.2018 [ANNEXURE-L]. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged the correctness of an office order dated 28.11.2018 issued by the respondent No.7 and consequently, to direct the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to admit his appointment to salary grant as per the proposals dated 12.03.2013 and 15.05.2015 forwarded by the respondent No.7. 2. The petitioner has also sought for an alternative relief to quash the memorandum bearing No.f1/ºÉ.².ºÉÆAzÁtÂPÉ/48/2018-19 dated 27.09.2018 and signed on 27.11.2018 issued by the respondent No.2 and consequently, to direct the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider his case for admission to grant-in-aid in terms of the representation dated 05.12.2018. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12627 WP No. 3576 of 2019 3. The petitioner contends that he was appointed as an Arts Teacher at Sri Gurumalleshwara High School at Adagoor, K.R. Nagara Taluk, Mysore District, on 28.07.1995. He was thereafter transferred and posted to Sri Gurumalleshwara Girls High School, Tagadoor, Nanjangud Taluk, Mysore and thereafter, at the respondent No.3 - School and subsequently, at respondent No.4-School. Respondent No.6 was also working as Arts Teacher in the respondent No.3 and due to her unauthorized absence, she was removed from service, which she challenged before the Educational Appellate Tribunal in M.A (E.A.T) No.3/2008. The respondent No.3 and respondent No.6 entered into a settlement in terms of which respondent No.6 was reinstated into service in terms of a communication dated 03.03.2009 issued by respondent No.7 to respondent No.6. In the meanwhile, the details of the name and post of the petitioner were sent by the respondent No.7 to the Deputy Director, Department of Public Education, Chamarajanagara District, through District Education Officer, Department of Public Education, for approval and for grant-in- aid on 12.03.2013. However, the respondent No.1 did not take any action on the proposal which prompted the respondent - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12627 WP No. 3576 of 2019 No.7 to issue a reminder proposal to the said District Education Officer on 15.05.2015. The petitioner contends that the respondent No.6 who was reinstated and posted in another school filed W.P Nos.24278-24279/2013 and the said writ petitions were disposed off by this Court on 10.10.2018 and the respondent - Management was directed to recommend the case of the petitioner therein / respondent No.6 herein, to the Government for extending the benefit of grant-in-aid considering that she was reinstated into the school where she was working since 1995. In view of the aforesaid observation of this Court, the respondent No.6 was brought back to the respondent No.3. In the meanwhile, another Teacher - Sri H.K. Shivaswamy, who was working at the respondent No.4 expired on 18.10.2018. Therefore, the petitioner was posted to work at respondent No.4 in the place of the deceased Sri H.K. Shivaswamy in terms of an office order dated 28.11.2018 issued by the respondent No.7. The petitioner was relieved of his duties as an Arts Teacher at the respondent No.3 and he reported immediately to duty at the respondent No.4 on 28.11.2018. The petitioner contends that after he was posted at the respondent No.4, his case for admission to grant-in-aid - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12627 WP No. 3576 of 2019 was not considered. Therefore, he made a representation to the Commissioner, Department of Public Instructions as well as the respondent No.7 seeking admission to grant-in-aid. In the meanwhile, the respondent No.2 by a memorandum dated 27.09.2018 signed on 27.11.2018, had posted the respondent No.5 to the place of the petitioner. The petitioner is, therefore, before this Court challenging the impugned memorandum dated 27.09.2018 and signed on 27.11.2018 issued by the respondent No.2 by which the respondent No.5 was posted at the place of the petitioner and for a direction to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to admit him to grant-in-aid in terms of the aforesaid proposals dated 12.03.2013 and 15.05.2015. 4. When this petition was listed for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this Court in terms of the order dated 28.01.2019, had directed the continuation of the petitioner in the respondent No.4 and that the said interim order was continued from time to time. As a result of the interim order, respondent No.5 is now posted at another school and therefore, the challenge to the impugned memorandum dated 27.09.2018 and signed on 27.11.2018 has spent in itself. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:12627 WP No. 3576 of 2019 that the only issue, which is outstanding is the admission of the post of the petitioner to grant in aid. He contends that the respondent No.3 has forwarded the case of the petitioner for consideration for admission to grant in aid and that the same is pending. He therefore, prays that this writ petition be considered only for the limited purpose of admitting the appointment of the petitioner for salary grant. 5. The learned High Court Government Pleader representing the official respondents submitted that if the respondent No.3 has sent a proposal to admit the appointment of the petitioner to salary grant, the same shall be considered in accordance with law and the continuation of the respondent No.6 in the respondent No.3 would also be looked into before the petitioner is admitted to grant in aid. 6. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed off on the following terms: (i) This writ petition is allowed in part. (ii) The impugned memorandum bearing No.f1/ºÉ.².ºÉÆAzÁtÂPÉ/48/2018-19 dated 27.09.2018 and signed on 27.11.2018 issued by respondent No.2 does not survive for - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:12627 WP No. 3576 of 2019 consideration in view of the subsequent posting of the respondent No.5. As a result, the petitioner shall be continued in the respondent No.4. (iii) The respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall take necessary steps to consider the proposal sent by the respondent No.3 to admit the appointment of the petitioner to salary grant. While doing so, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall take note of the fact that the respondent No.6 is admitted to salary grant at respondent No.3. (iv) This shall be complied within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE SMA - Para Nos. 1 to 3 PMR - para No.4 to end List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42