- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14370 WP No. 18971 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 18971 OF 2024 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. T.M. RANGASWAMY S/O LATE MADDURAIAH, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/AT NO.31, 'VIGNESH', NEAR NEW HORIZON SCHOOL, NAGADEVANAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560056. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KISHOR B.M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. NAGARAJAPPA A., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (HIGHER EDUCATION) M.S.BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, SESHADRI ROAD, BANGALORE - 560001. 3. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL IN KARNATAKA (A AND E) OPP. KPSC BUILDING BANGALORE DISTRICT - 560001. 4. THE DIRECTOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION, Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14370 WP No. 18971 of 2024 PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE - 560001. 5. DR. AMBEDKAR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY BY ITS PRINCIPAL, NEAR JNANA BHARATHI CAMPUS, MALLATHALLY, BANGALORE - 560056. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE; SRI. HARISH H.V., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.5) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMMUNICATION DATED 02.04.2024 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT IN NO. DTE/ATMIm/EST(16)14/2024 MARKED AT ANNEXURE-T. 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 sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the communication dated 02.04.2024 issued by the respondent No.4 in terms of which, the request of the petitioner for resigning from the services voluntarily was rejected, as he did not possess the qualifying service. 2. The petitioner contends that he was appointed as a Lecturer by the respondent No.5 on 24.02.1987. Thereafter, the respondent No.5 was admitted to grant-in-aid in the year - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14370 WP No. 18971 of 2024 1992 and the petitioner’s appointment was also approved, subject to grant-in-aid. The petitioner submitted his papers for voluntary retirement on 07.08.2006 and requested the official respondents to relieve him with effect from 31.08.2006. He thereafter submitted another representation dated 30.08.2006 to treat his earlier representation dated 07.08.2006 as a request to consider it as a letter of resignation. Accordingly, the petitioner was relieved from service vide order dated 15.09.2006. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted representation dated 14.08.2008 to treat his earlier representation dated 30.8.2006 as a letter for voluntary retirement, which was turned down by the respondent No.5 in terms of a letter dated 21.09.2011. The same was challenged in W.P.No.24546/2015, which was disposed off on 30.11.2022 holding that “if any representation is made requesting to count the unaided period of service of the petitioner for financial benefits, depending upon the outcome of the writ appeal No.2467/2015, I am sure that respondents would consider the same and pass appropriate orders". Following this, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 20.08.2023 requesting the respondents to grant financial benefits, followed by another representation - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14370 WP No. 18971 of 2024 dated 28.08.2023. He thereafter filed another writ petition No.26992/2023 for a direction to the respondent No.4 to consider the said representations. The writ petition was disposed off vide order dated 18.12.2023 directing the respondents therein to consider the representations within two months. Following this, the impugned order is passed on 02.04.2024, rejecting the claim of the petitioner, as he had not completed 15 years of qualifying service, which was a condition precedent for accepting his voluntary retirement. 3. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has taken no objection and therefore, he is not in a position to assist the Court. 5. The learned Additional Government Advocate for the official respondents submitted that the petitioner has to complete qualifying service of 15 years for voluntary retirement. However, the petitioner’s services were approved and admitted to the salary grant in the year 1992 and he submitted his resignation on 30.08.2006 and requested that the same be treated as a letter for voluntary retirement. He - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14370 WP No. 18971 of 2024 contends that the petitioner did not have the qualifying service to treat his resignation as voluntary retirement. He contends that if the service of the petitioner during which the respondent No.5 was not granted aid is taken into consideration, then the petitioner might be eligible as per the government order dated 17.02.1999. He further submits that the question whether the petitioner is entitled to count his service "during the unaided period" is at large before the Division Bench in writ appeal No.2467/2015. He therefore contends that it is in this scenario that the impugned order is passed and is therefore just and appropriate, as the petitioner did not possess the qualifying service. He reffered to a letter dated 20.03.2025 addressed by the Registrar, technical education, Bangalore where it is stated at paragraph No.12 as under: "12. It is submitted that as per Para 6(ii) of FD order No: FD/4/SRA/2010, Dated:15.02.2012 which states that the additional qualifying service as per 247(A) (1) is not applicable to those employees who come under the purview of TBS rules. Copy of the Order dated 15.02.2012 is enclosed herewith and marked as R-1." - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:14370 WP No. 18971 of 2024 6. I have considered the case of the petitioner and the submissions of the learned Additional Government Advocate as well as the learned counsel for respondent No.5. 7. As per the impugned order, the petitioner is bound to have a qualifying service of 15 years before his request for voluntary retirement is considered. The petitioner’s appointment was admitted to salary grant in the year 1992. He submitted his first request for voluntary retirement on 07.08.2006 and thereafter submitted another representation dated 30.08.2006 and requested the official respondents to treat his earlier representation as one for resignation. Later the petitioner made a request to treat his representation dated 30.08.2006 as one for voluntary retirement. Since the petitioner had made his request for voluntary retirement on 30.08.2006 by which time, he did not have the qualifying 15 years of service, the impugned order cannot be faulted. However, if the period of service during which the institution was not admitted to grant in aid is taken into account, then the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit, but as the issue whether the unaided period of service can be taken into consideration is pending consideration before the Division - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:14370 WP No. 18971 of 2024 Bench of this Court, the benefit of the unaided period cannot be extended to the petitioner as of now. Hence, the writ petition is disposed off, reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondents after disposal of writ appeal No. 2467/2015 referred supra. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28