- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3041 WP No. 18419 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 18419 OF 2024 (EDN-RES) BETWEEN S MANASA EDUCATION SOCIETY (R) ALDUR SAKALESHPUR HASSAN DISTRICT-573134 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRIKANTH M P., ADVOCATE ) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION M S BUILDING DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001 2. THE COMMISSIONER SCHOOL EDUCATION AND LITERACY DEPARTMENT NEW PUBLIC OFFICES NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU-560001 3. THE DIRECTOR SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT SCHOOL EDUCATION AND LITERACY DEPARTMENT NEW PUBLIC OFFICES NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU-560001 ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3041 WP No. 18419 of 2024 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT SCHOOL EDUCATION AND LITERACY DEPARTMENT CHIKKAMAGALURU-577101 5. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER CHIKKAMAGALURU-577101 6. SRI CHANDRASHEKAR A B S/O BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER (ARTS) S MANASA HIGH SCHOOL ALDUR-577111 CHICKMAGALUR TALUK AND DISTRICT 7. SRI SATHYANARAYANA M N AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER (SCIENCE-PCM)) S MANASA HIGH SCHOOL ALDUR-577111 CHICKMAGALUR TALUK AND DISTRICT 8. SRI KRISHNAPPA S PUJARY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER (SCIENCE-CBZ)) S MANASA HIGH SCHOOL ALDUR-577111 CHICKMAGALUR TALUK AND DISTRICT 9. SRI MUNISWAMY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, WORKING AS PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER GRADE-I S MANASA HIGH SCHOOL ALDUR-577111 CHICKMAGALUR TALUK AND DISTRICT 10. SRI. MAHENDRA H.K. S/O KRISHNAPPA AGED: 43 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER (KANNADA) GOVT. PRE. UNIVERSITY COLLEGE - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3041 WP No. 18419 of 2024 (HIGH SCHOOL DIVISION) ALDUR-577111 CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK & DISTRICT. 11. SRI. IRRAYYA SANGAYYA HIREMATH S/O SANGAYYA HIREMATH AGED: 33 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER (ENGLISH) GOVT. PRE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, (HIGH SCHOOL DIVISION) ALDUR-577111, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK & DISTRICT. 12. SRI T.S. MANJUNATHA S/O NINGAIAH, AGE: 40 YEARS, WORKING AS SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577101. … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PRATHIBHA R.K., AGA FOR R1 TO R5; SRI. K. MANJUNATHA RAO BHONSLE, ADVOCATE FOR R6 TO R12) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NOS. 1 TO 5 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 05.07.2024 MADE VIDE ANNEXURE-M, M1, M2 AND M3 AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 19.12.2024, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3041 WP No. 18419 of 2024 ORDER 1. The Petitioner-Society is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a. Direct respondent Nos 1 to 5 to consider the representations dated 05.07.2024 made vide Annexure-M, M1, M2 and M3. b. Grant approval for the disciplinary action against respondent nos 6 to 9 ba. Direct initiation of appropriate disciplinary action against the Respondents No. 4 and 5 for colluding with the Respondents No. 6 to 9 to ensure closure of the institution Manasa High School, Aldur, Chikmagaluru Taluk and District run by the Petitioner Management. bb. Quash the Memorandum bearing No. A2. Sha.Shi.E./Aa.Nu.Sha.Ve.Bi. Paa.93/2023-24 dated 05.07.2024, Relieving Order bearing No. A2/Saa.Shi.E/Aa.Nu.Sha.Ve.Bi.Paa. 93/2023- 24/217/20.08.2024 dated 20.08.2024 issued by the Respondent No.5 vide Annexures- Q, R and S respectively with regard to transfer of teachers of the Institution run by the petitioner to other institution treated as excess. c. Direct respondent nos. 4 and 5 to ensure effective and smooth running of S. Manasa High School, Aldur, Chikkamagalur Taluk and District run by the petitioner management by ensuring protection to the petitioner management and the students of the institution. d. Consequential relief or any other appropriate order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the ends of justice and equity. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3041 WP No. 18419 of 2024 2. The Petitioner claims to be a Society registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 in the year 1990-91 and is running three educational institutions viz., (i) Manasa High School- Aldur, Chikkamagalur, (ii) Manasa High School- Balagadde, Sakleshpura, Hassan District and (iii) Manasa High School-Arehalli, Belur Taluk, Hassan District which are all recognised and aided by the Education Department having admitted to Grant-in- Aid by the Government of Karnataka. 3. It is further claimed that the management of the society is running three unaided English Medium Institutions apart from the above three aided institutions. Insofar as Manasa High School-Aldur, Chikkamangalur is concerned it is stated that it started during 1992-93 and has been registered under the provision of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 and enjoys the recognition as per the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3041 WP No. 18419 of 2024 Certificate dated 07.11.2023, which is enforced until 2023-24. 4. Recognition had been granted in the year 1992, the Petitioner-Institution moved for admission to salary grants which came to be allowed on 13.03.2009 in respect of eight (08) teaching staff and one (01) non-teaching staff, appointment having been made Grant-in-Aid was extended to them vide order dated 09.07.2013 in respect of five (05) teaching staff and one (01) non-teaching staff. 5. There were certain disputes by some of the teachers as regards who was admitted to Grant-in-Aid and who was not, which came to be challenged before this Court in WP No.36001 of 2013, it is alleged that apprehending adverse orders to be passed against one (01) of the teacher-Sri.Chandrashekar.A.B. The teachers have acted a conspiracy and had approached the parents of the students of the institution, pressurizing and persuading them to withdraw their children from the institution by falsely - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:3041 WP No. 18419 of 2024 representing that the institution would be closed very soon. 6. It is on the basis of the panic created by them, that about 60 parents have withdrawn their children from the institution. The conduct of the teachers came to the notice of the institution when one of the parents complained of the pressure tactics brought about by the teachers in his representation dated 15.06.2024. It is alleged that some of the officials of the department have also been encouraging the teachers and in that background, it is submitted that the teachers acting contrary to the interest of the institution. 7. The petitioner-institution has on 05.07.2024 written to the respondents placing on record the said details to take action against the teachers as also the officials of the department and insofar as teachers are concerned sought permission to initiate action against the said teachers vide Annexures-M, M1, M2, M3 and M4. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:3041 WP No. 18419 of 2024 8. It is contended that despite such a representation having been furnished on 05.07.2024, no permission has been sanctioned and there is a hectic attempt being made to close the petitioner-institution. The officers are not responding to any of the requests made by the management. Instead of doing so, the respondent officers have transferred some of the teachers to other schools vide Annexure-Q, R and S dated 05.07.2024, 12.07.2024 and 20.08.2024. The petitioner taking into account the conduct of the teachers who had terminated their services on 19.06.2024. However this time, when the teachers had approached the respondent immediately they had issued a communication on 29.06.2024, that no such termination was possible without following the procedure provided and relevant Rules and it is in that background it is contended that the school has been unable to take action against teachers who are acting contrary to the interest of the school, the officers are protecting the said teachers, parents - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:3041 WP No. 18419 of 2024 have been coerced to withdraw the students causing harm, loss and injury to the institution both in terms of reputation as also the other aspects. 9. Sri.M.P.Srikanth., learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that; 9.1. When employees were to act contrary to the interest of the employer, it is but required for the employer to initiate disciplinary action as regards which permission having been sought for is neither been granted nor denied. The respondent officials are colluding with the teachers of the petitioner-institution and have infact supported them by transferring them to other institution so as to prevent the petitioner from taking action. 9.2. The teachers having prevailed upon the parents unlawfully to withdraw the students, the teachers having been transferred in an illegal manner, the interest of the petitioner-institution is suffering and thereby it is contended that the - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:3041 WP No. 18419 of 2024 institution be permitted to take action against the teachers by quashing the transfer notification which have been issued. 10. Smt.Prathibha.R.K., learned AGA for respondents No.1 to 5 would submit that; 10.1. The students of the petitioner-institution had submitted a complaint to Respondents No.1 to 5 that the Head Mistress who is an Aided Hindi Teacher was not teaching the students and not coming to the school regularly and in that background had appointed another teacher who was also not coming to the school regularly. It is in that background that the Block Education Officer (BEO) had issued notices to the Education Institution which was replied to by the petitioner in terms of Annexure-R6 to the Statement of Objection. 10.2. She submits that the Head Mistress not attending to school and not managing the school properly has resulted in drop in the - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:3041 WP No. 18419 of 2024 number of students. The students have taken voluntarily transfer and have joined other schools, the BEO has inspected the school and submitted a report to the Deputy Director categorically informing about the drop in the student enrollment, withdrawal of the students and no action being taken by the school to improve the strength of the students. 10.3. At this stage, the petitioner instead of taking action against the Head Mistress terminated services of four (04) teachers which is taken up with the Deputy Director who issued show- cause notice to the school to reinstate the four (04) teachers. Despite the same, the teachers have not been reinstated and it is in that background that the State being required to make payment of the salaries of the teachers has transferred the said teachers to another aided school where they are discharging duties. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:3041 WP No. 18419 of 2024 10.4. The entire fault is of the petitioner's school and its management who have not acted in a proper manner, resulting in students leaving the school, the service of the teachers being illegally terminated they have approached the State, the State has transferred them to a different school. On the above basis, she submitted that the above petition is required to be dismissed. 11. Sri.K.Manjunath Rao Bhonsle., learned counsel appearing for Respondents No.6 to 9-teachers would submit that; 11.1. The management of the petitioner school has not been acting in a proper manner, respondents No.6 to 9 have been following up with the management for declaration of promotion which has not been done. Despite their having completed 10 years of service, the management has not declared probation as satisfactory and permitted access to the Service - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:3041 WP No. 18419 of 2024 Register, these aspects were taken up by the teachers with the management. 11.2. It is alleged that the management was forcing the teachers to collect various monies under different heads of account from the students/the parents. Complaints having been submitted by the parents, a Three-man Committee had been formed who inspected the school and submitted a report, while action being taken the management of the institution illegally dismissed Respondents No.6 to 9 and it is challenging the same that the petitioners approached the concerned officers who caused another inspection of the school. 11.3. The termination of services of Respondents No. 6 to 9 has been challenged by them by filing an appeal before the Education Appellate Tribunal in EAT No.1 to 4 of 2024, which are pending disposal. It is on that basis he submits that the - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:3041 WP No. 18419 of 2024 petition is required to be dismissed by imposing exemplary cost. 12. Heard Sri.Srikanth.M.P., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt.Prathibha.R.K., learned AGA appearing for respondents No.1 to 5 and Sri.K.Manjunatha Rao Bhonsle., learned counsel appearing for respondents No.6 to 12. Perused papers. 13. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is running a school and the petitioner is part of the management, respondents No.6 to 9 are the teachers. A perusal of the printout of the Students Achievement Tracking System (SATS) portal which has been produced would indicate that there was sufficient strength in the recent past. However, the strength continued to decrease and came to a drastically low number. 14. The allegations and counter-allegations made by the management against the teachers and the teachers against the management, there being only five (05) teachers who have been admitted to Grant-in-Aid, - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:3041 WP No. 18419 of 2024 four (04) of those teachers have made allegations against the management and one (01) another teacher who is a Head Mistress. A complaint has also been made by the students about the said Head Mistress not attending to the school or not taking classes. 15. Though the allegations made by the management against the other teachers by contending that they have been instrumental in seeing that false complaints are filed and also pressurizing the parents from withdrawing the students to bring about a closure of the school. These allegations would have to be established in appropriate proceedings. 16. Respondents No.6 to 9 being terminated from their service and the said termination being challenged in EAT No.1 to 4 of 2024, these factual aspects would be dealt with by a specialised Tribunal created, therefor. Annexure-M series, as regards which prayer ‘A’ has been sought for is to initiate action against the said teachers, which action has already - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:3041 WP No. 18419 of 2024 been initiated. Thus, insofar as the teachers are concerned Annexure-M series has already spent itself. Insofar as the officers are concerned against whom action is sought for, I am of the considered opinion that depending on the outcome of the proceedings in the EAT, the EAT could well consider if any action has to be initiated against the teachers or against the management of the school, depending on the factual conclusion that the Tribunal would arrive at in those proceedings. 17. Insofar as prayer ‘B’ is concerned, disciplinary action having been already taken by the school, the question of granting approval now would not arise. 18. Insofar as prayer ‘BA’ is concerned, the institution having already taken action against respondents No.6 to 9, which has been challenged in EAT appeal No.1 to 4 of 2024, the question of initiating disciplinary action against respondents No.4 and 5 for colluding with respondents No.6 to 9 would only arise on the basis of the findings returned in EAT - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:3041 WP No. 18419 of 2024 appeal No.1 to 4 of 2024. When the EAT could decide on if any action is required to be taken against the respondents No.4 and 5 or against the petitioner institution. 19. Insofar as prayer ‘BB’ is concerned, the petitioners having terminated the service of respondents No.6 to 9, the question of the petitioners coming in the way of the official respondent transferring respondents No.6 to 9 to another school cannot be challenged in the manner as done in the present proceedings. Apparently, the petitioner also does not wish to avail the service of respondents No.6 to 9, hence the question of quashing the transfer order and relieving order would not arise. Since the petitioner institution itself does not want them working in their institution. When the petitioner institution has itself terminated Respondents No.6 to 9 the question of a request being made to stay their transfer orders would not arise. - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:3041 WP No. 18419 of 2024 20. Insofar as Prayer ‘C’ is concerned, it is for the petitioners to enroll adequate number of students as also to engage such teachers as may be required which would have to satisfy the time-to-time requirements of the applicable law. 21. In view of all the above, I am of the considered opinion that the disputed question of fact would have to be decided by the Education Appellate Tribunal in EAT No.1 to 4 of 2024 and there would be no requirement for this Court to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction to interfere in the present matter. The petition, not making out any grounds, stands dismissed. 22. In view of the dismissal of the main petition, pending IA’s does not survive for consideration. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE SR/List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1