IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT APPEAL NO. 954 OF 2022 (S-RES) BETWEEN: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (PRIMARY AND HIGHER SECONDARY) STATE OF KARNATAKA M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001 ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. REUBEN JACOB, AAG A/W. SRI. DEVARAJ C.H., HCGP) AND: 1 . SRI. D. PRAKASH S/O SRI. DODDANARASAPPA R/AT. THERINABEEDHI KORATAGERE TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 104 2 . THE SECRETARY SREE SIDDAGANGA EDUCATION SOCIETY ® SREE SIDDAGANGA MATT TUMAKURU-572 104 3 . THE PRINCIPAL SREE SIDDAGANGA JUNIOR COLLEGE HANUR - 2 TUMAKURU-572 104 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RANGANATHA S. JOIS AND SRI. S.Y. RODAGI, ADVOCATES FOR R1; V/O DATED 19.10.2022, NOTICE TO R2 & R3 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO (a) ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL AND (b) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.10.2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP No.8195/2020 (S-RES) AND ETC. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 22.03.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) This writ appeal is filed by the appellant/respondent No.1 challenging the order of learned Single Judge passed in Writ Petition No.8195/2020 dated 22.10.2021. 2. We have heard Shri. Reuben Jacob, learned Additional Advocate General along with Shri. Devaraj C.H., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the appellant, Shri. Ranganath S. Jois, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1. Notice to respondents No.2 - 3 and No.3 was dispensed with vide Court order dated 19.10.2022. 3. It is submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellant that respondent No.1 herein was appointed as peon in the second respondent - Institution by an order of appointment dated 13.06.1992 and his appointment was approved by the Joint Director of Public Instructions by order dated 20.10.1992 without grant- in-aid. The proposal of respondent No.1 for approval or grant was rejected under an endorsement dated 17.11.2014 on the ground that appointment of respondent No.1 was against a vacancy meant for Category-I. The said endorsement was challenged by respondent No.1 in Writ Petition No.16793/2017. The said writ petition was disposed of on 05.07.2018 holding that under the Government Order dated 21.04.1995, the appointments made prior to 01.06.1992 are saved and would remain valid as a one-time measure. The endorsement was quashed and a direction was issued to the State Government to reconsider the admission of respondent No.1 to grant-in-aid. On - 4 reconsideration of the said order, respondent No.1 was admitted to grant-in-aid by the appellant prospectively by an order dated 01.06.2019. 4. The writ petition was filed challenging the order insofar as it granted the benefit of approval to grant-in-aid only prospectively and seeking a direction to the respondents to admit the petitioner to grant w.e.f. 31.01.1995, the date on which the persons appointed along with the petitioner were so admitted. 5. After considering the contentions raised on either side, the learned Single Judge found that the Government had failed to take note of the Government Order dated 21.04.1995. It was found that by virtue of the said order, all similarly situated persons had been admitted to grant-in-aid w.e.f. 31.01.1995 and it was only on account of the contention that the writ petitioner's appointment was against a vacancy meant for Category-I that he was not granted the benefit from 31.01.1995. It was further found that the contention that there was no post of Peon in the staffing pattern was factually incorrect and that the writ - 5 petitioner was entitled to be admitted to the grant retrospectively from 31.01.1995. The writ petition was therefore allowed directing the grant of benefit to the writ petitioner retrospectively from 31.01.1995 within three months. 6. The learned Additional Advocate General submits that the findings of the learned Single Judge are erroneous. It is contended that the initial order rejecting the proposal for approval of grant-in-aid with retrospective effect was issued on 17.11.2014. It is further contended that the writ petitioner, not having been admitted to grant-in-aid along with similarly situated persons, had not challenged the said action within time. It is contended that the first representation submitted by him seeking the benefit of grant-in-aid was only on 20.09.2011 and thereafter, on 03.10.2013. It is contended that his inaction in the matter from January, 1995 to September, 2011 would show that he was not really aggrieved in the matter and that the learned Single Judge ought to have seen that the claim raised in the writ petition was hopelessly belated. - 6 7. It is further contended by the learned Additional Advocate General that the Government Order dated 21.04.1995 states that appointments made prior to 01.06.1992 would be saved. It is submitted that the appointment of the writ petitioner in the instant case was made on 13.06.1992 and therefore, would not come within the purview of the Government Order dated 21.04.1995. 8. It is further submitted that the State Government has enacted the Karnataka Private Aided Educational Institution Employees (Regulation of Pay, Pension and other benefits) Act, 2014 ("Act No.7/2014" for short) with a view to regulate salary allowances and other conditions of service of teaching and non-teaching employees and staff of Private Educational Institutions on their admitting to grant-in-aid and limiting financial liability of the State. Sections 49 to 54 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 ("1983 Act" for short) dealing with grant-in-aid to be extended to Private Educational Institutions came into force with effect from 01.06.1995. It is further submitted that the said provisions provide that, within the limits of its economic capacity, the - 7 State Government shall set apart funds annually in its budgetary allocations which is to be given as grant-in-aid to Local Authority Institutions and Private Educational Institutions in the State. Prior to the 1983 Act, grant-in-aid was extended as per the provisions of the Grant-in-Aid Code which continues to be in force and that this Court ought to take into consideration the Grant-in-Aid code as if they were framed under the provisions of 1983 Act. 9. It is contended that the Private Educational Institutions cannot claim grant as a matter of right and the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the purpose of grant-in-aid and it is for the Government to take a policy decision in such matters. Once a Private Educational Institution is admitted to grant, it is from that date onwards the teaching and non-teaching staff are entitled to seek enforcement of grant. 10. Rule 3(1)(b) of the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Recruitment and Terms and Conditions of Service of Employees in Private Aided Primary and Secondary Educational Institutions) Rules, 1999 provides - 8 that both teaching and non- teaching staff of the Private Educational Institutions, admitted to grant-in-aid, disentitles them from seeking any benefits for their service prior to being admitted to grant-in-aid. It is further submitted that having accepted the salary, now it is not open to teaching and non-teaching staffs to claim any benefit of service rendered by them during the un-aided period. 11. It is further contended that the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.8195/2020 is contrary to Act No.7/2014 and in view of the order passed, huge financial burden has to be discharged by the State Government though respondent No.1 is not entitled for such financial benefits. 12. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 that respondent No.1 challenged the order granting prospective approval of his appointment in 1992 w.e.f. 2020 on the basis of judicial order. The learned Single Judge held that there is a clear discrimination inasmuch as the persons appointed along with respondent No.1 in 1992, having their appointment approved with - 9 effect from 31.01.1995 for grant-in-aid. Not granting the approval from 1995 in respect of respondent No.1, itself is an act of discrimination because the proceedings were pending before this Court in Writ Petition Nos.16793/2017 and 8195/2020. 13. It is further contended that the facts which were never raised in the original proceedings are being now sought to be raised and argued in this writ appeal without any pleadings having been raised in that regard. It is further submitted that the 1999 Rules came into force on 01.09.1995 and respondent No.1 was appointed in the year 1992 and that the persons appointed along with him by the same order have been approved for grant in the same Institution w.e.f 31.01.1995 much before the 1999 Rules came into force. 14. It is submitted that the Rules referred to by the appellant speaks of fixation of pay and other benefits from the date of approval but the question is, respondent No.1 challenged the very approval made prospectively on the ground that there is a discrimination and his approval was - 10 denied just because of pendency of two proceedings before this Court. The approval of grant was objected to on the ground that the appointment of respondent No.1 was against a reserved vacancy. Having found the 1st respondent entitled to be admitted to grant in aid, there was no justification for limiting the benefit prospectively. 15. We have considered the contentions advanced on either side. We notice that the writ petitioner had admittedly been appointed as Peon by an order of appointment dated 13.06.1992. His appointment was approved by the Joint Director on 20.10.1992 without grant- in-aid. Thereafter, a proposal for approval of grant to all the persons appointed together was forwarded. Insofar as the petitioner was concerned, the proposal was rejected by an endorsement dated 17.11.2014, on the ground that writ petitioner's appointment was against a vacancy meant for Category-I. The said endorsement was challenged in WP No.16793/2017 which was disposed of by the judgment dated 05.07.2018 (Annexure-H). In the said judgment, a specific contention was raised by the Government Advocate - 11 stating that appointment of the petitioner cannot be considered as an appointment prior to 01.06.1992 in view of the date indicated as 17.06.1992 and the reference to an order dated 20.10.1992. This Court directed for consideration of the question whether writ petitioner's appointment was one made prior to 01.06.1992, in the light of the Government Order dated 21.04.1995. The said consideration resulted in Annexure-K order by which, the petitioner was held entitled to the benefit of the Government Order dated 21.04.1995. However, he was admitted to grant-in-aid only prospectively. It was this decision which was subjected to a challenge at the instance of the writ petitioner before this Court. 16. In the above facts and circumstances, we fail to see how the State can raise a contention that either the writ petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of the Government Order dated 21.04.1995 or that his writ petition was belated in any manner. The only thing that stood in the way of retrospective approval or admission to grant in, the case of the writ petitioner, was the fact that he was appointed - 12 against a Category-I post. No justifiable reason whatsoever was available for making the admission to grant prospective in the instant case. 17. Having considered the arguments and contentions raised, the learned Single Judge held that the persons appointed along with the petitioner had been admitted to grant-in-aid w.e.f. 31.01.1995 and that in view of the finding of government that the writ petitioner was entitled for exemption provided by the Government Order dated 21.04.1995, he is to be admitted to grant with effect from the said date. 18. Having considered the contentions and the arguments advanced, we are of the opinion that the said finding was fully justified and we find no reason to interfere with the same in this intra-Court appeal. The arguments raised in this appeal cannot be countenanced in view of the specific stand taken by the Government as evidenced by the order under challenge. In the result, the appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. The benefits of judgment of the learned Single Judge shall be made available to the - 13 writ petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. All pending interlocutory applications shall stand disposed of. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PN