1 Reserved on : 12.02.2025 Pronounced on : 20.02.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION No.100401 OF 2025 (S-TR) BETWEEN: THE B.V.V.SANGHA’S BASAVESHWAR ENGINEERING COLLEGE S.NIJALINGAPPA, VIDYANAGAR BAGALKOT – 587 102 REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SHIVAPRASAD M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI M.S.HALLIKERI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT HIGHER EDUCATION (TECHNICAL EDUCATION), M.S.BUILDING BENGALURU. 2 . THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT HIGHER EDUCATION (TECHNICAL EDUCATION), M.S.BUILDING BENGALURU. 3 . DIRECTOR R Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad 2 DEPARTMENT OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001. 4 . JOINT DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION) DEPARTMENT OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001. 5 . THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. KIRTILATA R.PATIL, HCGP) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE, WRIT, ORDER, OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE ORDER DATED. 29.06.2024 BEARING NO. DTE 09 EST (14) 2024 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER COLLEGE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 12.02.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CAV ORDER The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 29.06.2024, passed by the fourth respondent – Joint Director (Administration), Department of Technical Education, by which, few 3 teaching and nonteaching staff are deployed into the petitioner’s Institution. 2. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: Petitioner is an engineering college established by B.V.V.Sangha, Bagalkot. It is an aided institution receiving salary grants from the hands of the State. The college is said to have been accredited as ‘A Grade’ from NAAC. Since the petitioner is an engineering college, is affiliated to Sir M. Visvesvaraya Institute Of Technology and is governed by University Grants Commission for maintenance of standards of education. It is the averment in the petition that the petitioner’s Institution has applied for getting a University status in terms of the relevant statute. 3. The issue in the lis is not with regard to the status of the petitioner. On 29.06.2024, the 4th respondent transfers / deploys 6 employees of B.V.B. Engineering College, Hubballi to the petitioner’s Institution – Basaveshwara Engineering College. The college in turn communicates to the 4th respondent on 01.07.2024, expressing its inability to allow joining or let in those 6 transferred / deployed staff into the college. The third respondent – the Director, 4 Department of Technical Education then issues a notice on 11.07.2024, directing the petitioner’s Institution to permit joining of 6 employees. This was also replied to by the petitioner on 30.08.2024, which only resulted in a second notice being issued by the third respondent on 28.10.2024. This was again replied to by the petitioner. It transpires that the State has stopped release of salary to all the employees working in the petitioner’s Institution solely on the score that the petitioner’s Institution has not obeyed the orders of the government. It is at that juncture the petitioner is before this Court in the subject petition, calling in question the aforesaid order and the act of the State of withholding salary grant to the employees of the Institution and the deployment. 4. Heard Sri Shivaprasad M. Shantanagoudar, learned counsel appearing for Sri M.S.Hallikeri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Kirtilata R. Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents – State. 5. Learned counsel Sri Shivaprasad M. Shantanagoudar, representing the petitioner – Institution would, vehemently contend that the deployment into the petitioner’s Institution should happen 5 only on consultation. No institution can be forced to take the employees who have become excess in other aided institutions. It affects the morale and career prospects of the employees of the recipient Institution and the like. He would place reliance upon the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Recruitment and Terms and Conditions Of Service of Employees in Aided Colleges of Education and Teachers’ Training Institutes) Rules, 2001 (for short ‘the Rules, 2001’) and the provisions of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 (for short ‘the Act’) to buttress his submission and submits that such deployment can happen only on consultation. 6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that under Section 133 of the Act, the government has power to issue directions to carry out the purposes of the Act. This being the mandate of the statute, the petitioner - Institution cannot contend that they cannot follow the orders of the government. She would further place reliance upon Clause 9(A) of the Grant-in-Aid Code of the Karnataka Technical Education Department (for short ‘the Code’) to contend that the management is bound to follow the directions / 6 orders as may be issued by the government and, in the event they would not follow, the very Code empowers to stop or withhold the grants and therefore, the salary grants are withheld. She would submit that no fault can be found at the hands of the State, in issuing the impugned order and seeks dismissal of the petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would join the issue contending that orders of the government cannot be contrary to law. What the government can direct is implementation of policy of reservation. These are engineering colleges, standards of education should be kept in mind and the government cannot arm twist the Institution and non-pay the salaries of existing teachers. 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the material on record. 9. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The petitioner - Institution is an engineering college as described hereinabove. The issue in the lis springs from an order dated 29.06.2024, issued by the 4th respondent, deploying / transferring 3 teaching staff, and 7 3 nonteaching staff. The order dated 29.06.2024, insofar as it concerns the petitioner’s Institution, reads as follows: CzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå: rnE 09 EJ¸ïn (14) 2024, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 29.06.2024 ಪಾವೆಯ ವ ರುವಂೆ, .. ಭೂಮೆ, ಇಂಯ ಂ ಾೇಜು, ಹುಬ$%&, ಸಂೆ(ಯ ನ ಅನು+ಾತ ಯು (.ಇ). ೋಸು-ಗಳ 0ೇತಾನು+ಾನದಯ ಅನು2ೕದೆ3ೊಂಡು ಾಯ- ವ-5ಸು6ರುವ ಅನು+ಾತ 7ೋಧಕ/7ೋಧೇತರ ಬ$ಂ:ಗಳ ಾಯ-;ಾರ<=ಂತ >ೆಚು@ವ AಾBರುವ 2ದಲೆಯ ಮತು ಎರಡೆಯ ಹಂತದ ವ3ಾ-Eಸ7ೇಾBರುವ 03 7ೋಧಕ ಮತು 09 7ೋಧೇತರ ಬ$ಂ:ಗ%3ೆ ಅನುಕೂಲ ಕ Fಸುವ ದೃHIEಂದ ಇತರ ಅನು+ಾತ ಇಂಯ ಂ ಾೇಜುಗಳ Jಾ Eರುವ ಹು+ೆKಗಳ ವರಗಳನುL ಉೇಖ (6) ರ ... ಸಂೆ(ಯ OಾಂಶುOಾಲ 3ೆ ಕಳQ5 ವ3ಾ-ವRೆ >ೊಂದಲು ಬಯಸುವ ಸಂೆ(ಗಳನುL ಆT= Uಾೊಳ&ಲು ಅವಾಶ ಕ FಸಾBತು. ಅದರಂೆ ಉೇಖ (7) ರ OಾಂಶುOಾಲರ ಪತದ ಬ$ಂ:ಗಳQ ಆT= …………. “¹§âA¢UÀ¼ÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 30.06.2024 gÉƼÀUÉ PÀqÁØAiÀĪÁV ªÀUÁðªÀuÉUÉÆAqÀ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÀ¼À°è PÁAiÀÄðªÀgÀ¢ ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀîvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. PÀæ ¸ÀA ¹§âA¢AiÀÄ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ ¥ÀzÀ£ÁªÀÄ d£Àä ¢£ÁAPÀ ¤ªÀÈwÛ ºÉÆAzÀĪÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ ªÀUÁð¬Ä¸À¯ÁzÀ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ ¹«¯ï EAf¤AiÀÄjAUï «¨sÁUÀ 1 ²æà J¸ï.r.PÉÆÃPÀuÉ qÁæ¥sïÖ ªÀÄ£ï 22.07.1964 31.07.2024 ©.JA.J¸ï.EAf¤AiÀÄjAUï PÁ¯ÉÃdÄ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ªÉÄPÁå¤PÀ¯ï EAf¤AiÀÄjAUï «¨sÁUÀ 2 ²æà ©.Dgï.C®èªÀÄä£ÀªÀgï ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¨ÉÆÃzsÀPÀgÀÄ 20.06.1973 30.06.2033 §¸ÀªÉñÀégÀ EAf¤AiÀÄjAUï PÁ¯ÉÃdÄ, ¨ÁUÀ®PÉÆÃmÉ 3 ²æà «.ºÉZï.²gÀUÀÄ¦à ªÉÄPÁå¤Pï 01.06.1996 31.05.2026 §¸ÀªÉñÀégÀ EAf¤AiÀÄjAUï PÁ¯ÉÃdÄ, ¨ÁUÀ®PÉÆÃmÉ (SÁ° EgÀĪÀ £ÉÃgÀ £ÉêÀÄPÁw ºÀÄzÉÝUÉzÀÄgÁV) 4 ²æà J¸ï.J¸ï.ªÁ°äÃQ ºÉ®àgï 03.07.1970 31.07.2030 §¸ÀªÉñÀégÀ EAf¤AiÀÄjAUï PÁ¯ÉÃdÄ, ¨ÁUÀ®PÉÆÃmÉ” ..... ..... .... “DqÀ½vÀ ¹§âA¢ 8 ²æêÀÄwJ¸ï.J£ï.»gÉêÀÄoï ¢é.zÀ.¸À. 22.07.1973 31.07.2033 §¸ÀªÉñÀégÀ EAf¤AiÀÄjAUï 8 9 ²æà ¦.©.¸ÀªÀ¢ ¢é.zÀ.¸À. 22.07.1968 31.07.2028 10 ²æà J¸ï Dgï.ZÀPÀ®©â ¢é.zÀ.¸À. 01.06.1969 31.05.2029 PÁ¯ÉÃdÄ, ¨ÁUÀ®PÉÆÃmÉ (SÁ° EgÀĪÀ £ÉÃgÀ £ÉêÀÄPÁw ºÀÄzÉÝUÉzÀÄgÁV)” (Emphasis added) The conditions stipulated for such deployment reads as follows: “ಷರತುಗಳQ 1) [ೕಲ=ಂಡ ಬ$ಂ:ಗಳ 06 7ೋಧೇತರ ಬ$ಂ:ಗಳ ಮುಂಬ3ೆ ಈ ಕ]ೇ ಆ+ೇಶ ¸ÀASÉå: rnE 38 EJ¸ï n (14) 2023 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 29-06-2024 gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ C£ÀĪÉÆÃzÀ£É ೕಡಾBದುK ಸದ ಬ$ಂ:ಗಳನುL ಮುಂಬ ಹು+ೆKಗಳ ವ3ಾ-ವRೆ Uಾರುವ^+ಾB ಪ ಗ_ಸತಕ=ದುK 2) [ೕಲ=ಂಡ ಬ$ಂ:ಗಳQ ತಮ` >ೆಸ ನ ಮುಂ+ೆ ಸೂaರುವ ಸಂೆ(ಯ ಾಯ-ವರ: Uಾೊಳ&ತಕ=ದುK ವ3ಾ-ವRೆ3ೊಂರುವ ಬ$ಂ:ಗಳನುL ಾಯ-ವರ: Uಾೊಂಡ ಬ3ೆb ಆಯುಾಲಯೆ= ವರ: ಸ ಸತಕ=ದುK. 3) OಾಂಶುOಾಲರು, ... ಾೇc ಆd ಇಂಯ ಂ ಅಂe fೆಾLಲ, ಹುಬ$%& ಇವರು ವ3ಾ-Eತ ೌಕರರ ಎಾ ೇ0ಾ +ಾಖೆಗಳQ >ಾಗೂ ೇ0ಾ ಪ^ಸಕಗಳನುL ವ3ಾ-Eರುವ ಸಂೆ(ಗ%3ೆ ಕಳQ5ಸತಕ=ದುK. 4) ಸದ ಅhಾ ಗಳQ/ಬ$ಂ:ಗಳ ೇ0ಾ eÉåõÀÚೆಯನುL ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟI, ಸಂೆ(ಗಳ 'ಈ3ಾಗೇ ಾಯ-ವ-5ಸು6ರುವ ಬ$ಂ:ಗಳ PÉಳ3ೆ eÉåõÀÚೆಯನುL ಗhಪಸತಕ=ದುK 5) ವ3ಾ-EಸಲFಟI ಬ$ಂ:ಗಳQ ವ3ಾ-ವRೆ3ೊಂಡ ಸಂೆ(ಯ ಆಡ%ತ ಮಂಡ%ಯ 0ಾjk3ೆ ಒಳವಡುಾೆ. 6) ಅhಾ ಗಳQ/ ಬ$ಂ:ಗಳQ ಇನುL ಮುಂ+ೆ 0ೇತನ, ಇತೇ ಭೆj >ಾಗೂ ಲಭj0ಾಗಬಹು+ಾದ ೇ0ಾ ೌಲಭjಗಳನುL ವ3ಾ-ವRೆ >ೊಂ:ದ ಸಂೆ(ಗ%ಂದೇ ಪmೆಯತಕ=ದುK. 7) ವ3ಾ-ವRೆ3ೊಂಡ ಅhಾ ಗಳQ/ಬ$ಂ:ಗಳQ ... ಾೇc ಆd ಇಂಯ ಂ ಅಂe fೆಾLಲ, ಹುಬ$%&, ಸಂೆ(ಯ ಸ ದ ಅನು+ಾತ ೇ0ೆಯನುL Uಾತ ವೃ6 0ೇತನ ೌಲಭjಗ%3ೆ ಪ ಗ_ಸತಕ=ದುK.” 9 The petitioner’s Institution replies to the said order. The reply dated 01.07.2024, reads as follows: “Uಾನj ಆಯುಕರು ಾೇಜು ಮತು ಾಂ6ಕ noಣ ಇಾJೆ ಾಂ6ಕ noಣ ಭವನ, ಅರಮೆ ರೆ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ – 01 EªÀjUÉ ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉà ಷಯ: .«í. ಭೂಮರ ಇಂಜೕಯ ಂಗ ಾೇನ ಬ$ಂ:ಗಳನುL ಬಸ0ೇಶqರ ಇಂಜೕಯ ಂಗ ಾೇ3ೆ ವ3ಾ-Eದ ಕು ತು. G¯ÉèÃR: vÀªÀÄä Email ¢£ÁAPÀ 01-07-2024 [ೕಾ=_ದ ಷಯ >ಾಗೂ ಉೇಖೆ= ಸಂಬಂhದಂೆ . . ಭೂಮರ ಇಂಜೕಯ ಂಗ ಾೇನ 06 noೇತರ ಬ$ಂ:ಗಳನುL ಬಸ0ೇಶqರ ಇಂಜೕಯ ಂಗ ಾೇ3ೆ ವ3ಾ-E ಉೇrತ Email ಮುJಾಂತರ ¢£ÁAPÀ 01-07-2024 gÀAzÀÄ w½¹gÀÄwÛj. ಮುಂದುವೆದು ನಮ` ಮ>ಾ+ಾjಲಯವನುL ಶq+ಾjಲಯವಾLB (University) ಪ ವ6-ಸಲು ;ಾರತ ¸ÀgÀPÁgÀzÀ University Grant Commission (UGC) UÉ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¸ÀĪÀ PÉ®¸À ¨sÀgÀ¢AzÀ ¸ÁVzÉ ಮುಂ:ನ sೈo_ಕ ವಷ-:ಂದ ನಮ` ಮ>ಾ+ಾjಲಯವ^ ಕೂಡ ಶq+ಾjಲಯ0ಾB (University) ಪ ವತ-ೆ3ೊಳQ&ವ ಸಂಭವ ಇರುತ+ೆ. ಾವ^ ವ3ಾ-ವRೆ Uಾ ಕಳQ5ದ 06 ಜನ noೇತರ ಬ$ಂ:ಗಳQ ಅನು+ಾಕ ;ಾಗಗಳ ಾಯ-ವ-5ದವ ರುಾೆ. 5ೕ3ಾB ನಮ` ಮ>ಾ+ಾjಲಯವ^ ಶq+ಾjಲಯ0ಾB (University) ಪ ವತ-ೆ3ೊಂಡೆ ಸದ ೌಕರgÀ (6ಯು ಆತಂತ0ಾB ಪರ+ಾಡ7ೇಾಗುತ+ೆ. ಸದ ಬ$ಂ:ಗಳ 5ತದೃHIಯನುL ಗಮನದ ಟುIೊಂಡು ಈ ಎಲ ಅಂಶಗಳ ಕು ತು Uಾನj ಾAಾ-ಧjoರು >ಾಗೂ ಆಡ%ತ ಮಂಡ% ಇವೊಂ:3ೆ ಚa-ದುK, ಅವರ ಆ+ೇಶದ [ೕೆ3ೆ ಸದ ಬ$ಂ:ಗಳನುL ನಮ` ಮ>ಾ+ಾjಲಯದ >ಾಜಾ6 Uಾೊಂರುವ^:ಲ. [ೕೆ 6%ರುವ ಾರಣಗಳನುL ಪ ಗ_ ಸದ ಬ$ಂ:ಗಳನುL 7ೇೆ ಅನು+ಾತ ಮ>ಾ+ಾjಲಯೆ= ವ3ಾ-Eಸ7ೇೆಂದು ತಮ` ನಂ6ಸಾB+ೆ. zsÀ£ÀåªÁzÀUÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ, ¸À»/- ¦æ¤ì¥Á®.” 10 The reply results in a notice being issued on 11.07.2024. The notice reads as follows: “¸ÀASÉå: rnE 09 EJ¸ïn(14)2024 DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀ PÀbÉÃj vÁAwæPÀ ²PÀët E¯ÁSÉ CgÀªÀÄ£É gÀ¸ÉÛ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ-560001, ¢£ÁAPÀ:11.07.2024 £ÉÆÃn¸ï ಷಯ: ೆ.ಎu.ಇ. ಾಂ6ಕ ಶq+ಾjಲಯದ 0ಾjk3ೆ ಒಳಪvIರುವ ... ಇಂಯ ಂ ಾೇಜು, ಹುಬ$%& ಸಂೆ(ಯ ನ ಅನು+ಾತ 7ೋಧಕ ಮತು 7ೋಧೇತರ ಬ$ಂ:ಗಳನುL ಇತರ ಅನು+ಾತ ಇಂಯ ಂ ಾೇಜುಗಳ Jಾ ಹು+ೆKಗ%3ೆ ವ3ಾ-Eಸುವ ಬ3ೆb, ಉೇಖ: 1. ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå: Er/447/AiÀÄÄDgï¹/2023, ¢:21.02.2024 2. ಈ ಕ]ೇ ಸಮಸಂJೆjಯ ಪತ :: 12.06.2024 3. OಾಂಶುOಾಲರು, ... ಇಂಯ ಂ ಾೇಜು ಇವರ ಪತ ¸ÀASÉå: ©.«.©/EJ¸ïn/215/2024-25/206, ¢: 18.06.2024 4. ಈ ಕ]ೇ ಸಮಸಂJೆjಯ ಆ+ೇಶ :: 29.06.2024 5. OಾಂಶುOಾಲರು, ಬಸ0ೇಶqರ ಇಂಯ ಂ ಾೇಜು ¨ÁUÀ®PÉÆÃmÉ EªÀgÀ ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå: ©E¹/©fPÉ/418/1EJ¸ïn/2024-25, ¢:01.07.24 6. ಬಸ0ೇಶqರ ಇಂಯ ಂ ಾೇಜು, 7ಾಗಲೋfೆ ಇ 3ೆ ವ3ಾ-EಸಲFಟI 06 7ೋಧೇತರ ಬ$ಂ:ಗಳ ಮನ ¢:03.07.2024. **** ಷಯೆ= ಸಂಬಂhದಂೆ ಉೇಖ (1) ರ ಸಾ-ರದ ಆ+ೇಶದ ... ಇಂಯ ಂ ಾೇಜು, ಹುಬ$%& ಈ ಸಂೆ(ಯ ನmೆಸಾಗು6ದK ಅನು+ಾತ ೋw-ಗಳನುL ಮುಚ@ಲು ಮತು ಸದ ೋw-ಗಳ ಈ3ಾಗೇ 0ಾjಾಂಗ Uಾಡು6ರುವ +ಾjx-ಗಳನುL 2025-26ೇ sೈo_ಕ ಾ ನ ಅಂತjೆ= ೋw- ಪyಣ-3ೊಳQ&ವವೆ3ೆ sೆqೕಶqರಯj ಾಂ6ಕ ಶq+ಾjಲಯದಯ Tೕ ಮುಂದುವೆಸಲು ಆ+ೇn+ೆ. ಅಲ+ೆ 2025-26ೇ ಾ 3ೆ ಮುಂaತ0ಾB ... ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ ಅನು+ಾತ ಬ$ಂ:ಗಳ ಾಯ-;ಾರವ^ 11 ಕ[Aಾಗುವ^ದ ಂದ >ೆಚು@ವ ಬ$ಂ:ಗಳನುL ಹಂತ ಹಂತ0ಾB ಇತರ ಅನು+ಾತ ಇಂಯ ಂ ಾೇಜುಗಳ Jಾ ಇರುವ ಹು+ೆKಗ%3ೆದುಾB ಗ:ತ ಅವhzಳ3ಾB ಸ({ಾಂತ ಸಲು ಸಾ-ರವ^ ಆ+ೇnರುತ+ೆ. ಸಾ-ರದ ಆ+ೇಶದನqಯ 2ದಲ ಮತು ಎರಡೆಯ ಹಂತದ ಸ({ಾಂತರ Uಾಡ7ೇಾBರುವ ... ಇಂಯ ಂ ಾೇನ ಅನು+ಾತ ಬ$ಂ:ಗ%3ೆ 7ೇೆ ಅನು+ಾತ ಇಂಯ ಂ ಾೇಜುಗಳ ಇತೆ Jಾ Eರುವ ಹು+ೆKಗಳ (7ಾj|ಾ ಮತು ಮುಂಬ ಹು+ೆKಗಳನುL >ೊರತುಪ) ವರಗಳನುL ೕ ವ3ಾ-ವRೆ >ೊಂದಲು ಬಯಸುವ ಸಂೆ(ಗಳನುL ಆT= Uಾೊಳ&ಲು ಅವಾಶ ಕ F, ಸದ ಬ$ಂ:ಗಳQ ಆT= Uಾೊಂಡ ಅನು+ಾತ ಇಂಯ ಂ ಾೇಜುಗ%3ೆ ಅವರುಗಳನುL ವ3ಾ-E ಉೇಖ (4) ರ ಆ+ೇnಸಾB+ೆ. ಅದರಂೆ ಸದ ಬ$ಂ:ಗಳ 06 7ೋಧೇತರ ಬ$ಂ:ಗಳನುL ಬಸ0ೇಶqರ ಇಂಯ ಂ ಾೇಜು, 7ಾಗಲೋfೆ ಸಂೆ(3ೆ ವ3ಾ-EಸಾB+ೆ. ಆದೆ ಸದ 06 ಬ$ಂ:ಗಳQ ಉೇಖ (6) ರ ಈ ಕ]ೇ 3ೆ ಮನ ಸ ತಮ`ನುL ಬಸ0ೇಶqರ ಇಂಯ ಂ ಾೇಜು, 7ಾಗಲೋfೆ ಇ ಾಯ-ವರ: Uಾೊಂರುವ^:ಲ0ೆಂದು 6%ರುಾೆ. ಮುಂದುವೆದು, ಉೇಖ (5) ಸದ ಸಂೆ(ಯ OಾಂಶುOಾಲರ ಪತದ ತಮ` ಸಂೆ(ಯನುL ಶq+ಾjಲಯವಾLB ಪ ವ6-ಸಲು ಯು...3ೆ ಪಾವೆ ಸ ಸಾಗು6ರುವ^ದ ಂದ ಸದ 06 7ೋಧೇತರ ಬ$ಂ:ಗಳನುL ಾಯ-ವರ: Uಾೊಳ&+ೆ 7ೇೆ ಅನು+ಾತ ಸಂೆ(3ೆ ವ3ಾ-Eಸ7ೇೆಂದು ೋ ರುಾೆ. ಕಾ-ಟಕ noಣ ಅhಯಮ 1983 ರ ಯಮ 133 (3) ರನLಯ ಸಾ-ರವ^ ಅವಶjಕ0ೆಂದು ಅ}OಾಯಪಟುI ೕಡುವ +ೇ-ಶನಗಳನುL ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟI Oಾhಾ ಗಳQ Oಾ ಸುವ^ದು ಅವ^ಗಳ ಕತ-ವj0ಾBರುತ+ೆ. ಮುಂದುವೆದು, ಾಂ6ಕ noಣ ಇಾJೆಯ ಅನು+ಾತ ಸಂ5ೆಯ ಯಮ 9(vii) ರನLಯ ಸಾ-ರವ^ ೈ3ೊಳQ&ವ Aಾವ^+ೇ ಸಾ-ರದ ೕ6ಯ ~ಾ-ರಗಳನುL ಅನು+ಾತ ಸಂೆ(ಗಳQ Oಾ ಸ7ೇಾBರುತ+ೆ. ಅದರಂೆ ಉೇಖ (1) ಮತು (4) ರ ಸಾ-ರ ಮತು ಆಯುಕರು, ಾೇಜು ಮತು ಾಂ6ಕ noಣ ಇಾJೆ ಇವರು ೈ3ೊಂರುವ ~ಾ-ರದಂೆ ಉೇಖ (4)ರ ಆ+ೇಶದ ಬಸ0ೇ±Àéರ ಇಂಯ ಂ ಾೇ3ೆ ವ3ಾ-Eರುವ 06 7ೋಧೇತರ ವೃಂದದ ಬ$ಂ:ಗಳನುL ಕೂಡೇ ಾಯ-ವರ: Uಾೊಳ&ತಕ=ದುK, ಇಲ0ಾದ ಯUಾನುಾರ ಮುಂ:ನ ಸೂಕ ಕಮ ಜರುBಸಾಗುವ^+ೆಂದು ಈ ಮೂಲಕ 6%ಸಾB+ೆ. (ಕರಡು Uಾನj ಆಯುಕ ಂದ ಅನು2ೕ:ಸಲFvIರುತ+ೆ) ¸À»/- +ೇ-ಶಕರು, 12 ಾಂ6ಕ noಣ ಇಾJೆ. ¸À»/- 11/07/2024 (Emphasis added) The reply is not heeded too, and a second notice is issued calling upon the petitioner to accept the deployed employees. The result is, withholding of the salary grant of the petitioner’s Institution. The issue now would be whether the act of the state has a statutory backing. 10. Heavy reliance is placed by the State upon Section 133 of the Act, it reads as follows: “133. Powers of Government to give directions:- (1) The State Government may, subject to other provisions of this Act, by order, direct the Commissioner of Public Instruction or the Director or any other officer not below the rank of the District Educational Officer to make an enquiry or to take appropriate proceeding under this Act in respect of any matter specified in the said order and the Director or the other officer, as the case may be, shall report to the State Government in due course the result of the enquiry made or the proceeding taken by him. (2) The State Government may give such directions to any educational institution or tutorial institution as in its opinion are necessary or expedient for carrying out the purposes of this Act or to give effect to any of the provisions contained therein or of any rules or orders made thereunder 13 and the Governing Council or the owner, as the case may be, of such institution shall comply with every such direction. (3) The State Government may also give such directions to the officers or authorities under its control as in its opinion are necessary or expedient for carrying out the purposes of this Act, and it shall be the duty of such officer or authority to comply with such directions” (Emphasis supplied) The power of the government is to issue directions to any educational institution to give effect to any of the provisions of the Act and the Rules of the Education Act. The petitioner’s Institution is an aided Institution which would mean the petitioner is receiving salary grants from the hands of the State. Salary grant is governed by certain conditions as obtaining under Chapter III - general conditions of grant-in-aid for technical institutions. Clauses 7 and 9(A) of the Code, read as follows: “7. Every Institution on behalf of which grant-in- aid is sought shall be under the control of a "Management,, which shall under-take to be answerable for the maintenance of the institution and for the due fulfilment of all the conditions of aid, as the stand from time to time.” "Rule 9 (A) (i) The Management shall follow such Rules or Orders as may be made by Government from time to time regarding the reservations in favour of Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe and other backward classes for (a) the recruitment and 14 promotion to various categories of posts, and (b) the admission of students to Aided Private Engineering Colleges and Polytechnics in the Karnataka State. (ii) In the case, the Management fails to adhere to the guidelines in Sub-para (i) the Government shall have the power to stop or disallow or withhold all or any of the payments due to the Management and/or to the employees under this Agreement and also to recover from the Management the amount found due to the Government under this Agreement". Note: A copy of the yearly statement of accounts of the Institution duly audited and showing the amount spent for the purpose for which grants are given shall be furnished to the Government and the Director of Technical Education. (vii) to give effect to any policy decision of Government. (viii) to make admissions in accordance with the reservations ordered by Government from time to time.” (Emphasis supplied) Clause 9(A) supra observes that the management of the Institution shall follow such rules or orders as may be made by the government from time to time regarding, reservation and admission of students to the aided private engineering colleges, and polytechnics. 10.1. One more set of Rules have sprung in exercise of power under Section 145 of the Act. One of the Rules deals with transfer 15 of employees from one aided institution to another. Rule 12 of the Rules, 2001, reads as follows: “…. …. …. 12. Transfer of employees from one aided institution to another aided institution.-(1) Transfer of an employee can be permitted by the Competent Authority subject to the following conditions:- (a) that there is need for filling up the post in terms of subject, strength and attendance, (b) that the vacancy so proposed for transfer is a clear vacancy and is in accordance with the staffing pattern; (c) the management has clearly mentioned the nature and cause of vacancy supported by facts; d) that an employee receiving salary grant from Government earlier is proposed for transfer in the place of another employee or post which is also included in salary grant and no employee occupying a post receiving salary grant is proposed for transfer to an unaided post; (e) that both the managements have consulted. (2) The Competent Authority may grant permission to transfer in the following cases.- (a) in the case of a request by the management or the employee for a transfer within the institution of the same management; (b) in the case of request by management or the employee for a transfer to an institution of different management, with the consent of both the managements:” 16 In terms of the aforesaid Rule, transfer of an employee can be permitted by the competent authority subject to certain conditions, one of the conditions is, both the managements are consulted. Another set of conditions of grant in-aid specifically to technical institutions under the provisions of the Code is also in place. Those conditions of the Code insofar as they are germane, read as follows: “9. Every Management shall be responsible.- (i) to strictly fulfill in the case of a Technical or Technological College, the conditions of affiliation as laid down in the statutes and ordinance of the concerned University and in the case of a Polytechnic or a School the conditions of recognition as laid down by the Department; (ii) to report to the Director without delay all changes in its constitution and in the personnel of the Principals of the institutions; (iii) to subject the institutions to the inspection of the Officers of the Department designated for the purpose; (iv) to afford all convenience to the Officers of the State Government and of the Indian Audit Department deputed to audit the initial and other accounts of the institutions and of the management; (v) to strictly abide by the instructions or verdict of the inspecting or auditing agencies referred to at (iii) and (iv); 17 (vi) to keep such accounts and render to the Department such returns and reports as may be prescribed by the Director from time to time. Note: A copy of the yearly Statement of Accounts of the Institution duly audited and showing the amount spent for the purpose for which granis are given shall be furnished to the Government and the Director of Technical Education. (vii) to give effect to any policy decisions of Government; (viii) to make admissions in accordance with the reservations ordered by Government from time to time.” (Emphasis supplied) The management of any technical or technological college is bound to obey the directions of the government to any policy matters. 11. The afore-quoted is the statutory frame work under which the issue in the lis needs consideration. On a coalesce of the afore- quoted statutes / Rules / conditions of the Code would lead to an unmistakable inference that the power of the government to issue directions is undoubtedly mandated in the statute. But those directions cannot be for every purpose, but to implement the policy of the State with regard to reservation, maintenance of standards, admission to students or otherwise. The transfers are specifically 18 governed under the Rules, 2001. Clause 9(A) of the Code supra where the State has placed heavy reliance is unequivocal as it depicts that the rules and orders of the government made from time to time in favour of Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe and other backward classes for the purpose of recruitment and promotion to various categories of posts and admission of students into any aided private engineering colleges and polytechnics should be followed. If it is not followed, Sub-clause (ii) of Clause 9(A) of the Code vests power in the State to stop the grant. 12. In the case at hand, it is not that the petitioner has violated any policy of the State, qua reservation or admission to students. Therefore, it is plain and simple, the State cannot press Clause 9(A) either Sub-clause (i) or (ii) to achieve what they are wanting to achieve now. Conditions of grant in terms of the Code mandates and the recruitment rules of the Rules, 2001, which are quoted supra indicate that the transfer of employees can be only after both the managements of the institutions have been consulted. In the subject case, the government order does not leave any discretion to the petitioner but orders transfer of 19 employees as afore-observed. The power to issue directions cannot mean that the power could be used to issue directions to the Institution to take the teachers who are now rendered excess into the Institution, without its consent, as it undoubtedly generates depletion of morale of other teachers, of the institution, and give raise to hopes of seniority of the persons who are coming in, notwithstanding that they would be at the bottom of the list. Therefore, the matters of transfer should be only by consultation and not forcing upon any Institution much less engineering colleges or the medical colleges as the case could be. Though there is no bar to depute, it is a consultative process to be followed by the State, as the Rules, 2001 say so. 13. The transfer of the employees in the case at hand is deployment / deputation. In service parlance deployment / deputation is generally is a tripartite concept. Where the employee, deputing organisation and the recipient organisation have all consulted to the act. In the case hand, it is not even bipartite, it is unipartite, as the State itself decides as who should be deployed where. This is sans countenance. The power to stop grant in-aid is 20 only if the aided institution is not following the rules or orders in respect of reservation and admission to students, this cannot be stretched to the impugned action. 14. Drawing power from Clause 9(A) of the Code, the State is now arm-twisting the petitioner’s Institution to take the teachers from B.V.B. Engineering College into the petitioner’s Institution. It is highly uncouth on the part of the State to stop the salaries of the existing teachers, as an arm-twisting tactic, making the petitioner’s Institution to obey the orders. This action of the State, making someone work without payment of salary, would amount to ‘begar’ and hit by Article 23 of the Constitution of India. The State cannot be seen to practice ‘begar’ taking shelter under an unavailable power, to arm twist, the petitioner. 15. The effect of the order impugned in the subject petition does not stop at prejudice being caused to the petitioners. It has left the fate of those deputed also marooned in thin air, as there are several petitions filed before this Court seeking a direction to permit those deputed to join duties in the petitioner’s Institution or any other Institution in terms of the impugned order. They are also 21 not paid salary for the last 6 months. Therefore, the State has created a mess by passing the impugned order and trying to drop its might on the poor teachers by withholding the salary of both the petitioners or the ones who have been deployed now. It is highly unbecoming on the part of the State. 16. In the light of the preceding analysis, the petition deserves to succeed albeit, in part, with a direction that the transfer of employees can only happen as a consultation process and can never be a decision unipartite. 17. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER a. The petition is allowed in-part. b. The order dated 29.06.2024 passed by the 4th respondent stands quashed. c. The State is at liberty to initiate the consultation process bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order. 22 d. The salaries that are withheld of the employees working in the petitioner’s Institution shall be released within seven days from the receipt of a copy of the order. e. In the event, salaries are not released, that are to be released, even a day later than seven days, shall carry 6% interest per annum, from the date it is withheld, till the date of payment. __________SD/_________ JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA nvj CT:SS