- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9097 WP No. 19297 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 19297 OF 2013 (S-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT N P LATHA D/O PANCHAKSHARAIH AGED:45 YEARS, WORKING AS ASST. TEACHER VISHWABHARATHI HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, NEAR KARNATAKA DAIRY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, MALLASANDRA VILLAGE, TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT 2. B S SUGANDARAJ S/O GANGADHARAIAH, AGED: 51 YEARS, WORKING AS ASST. TEACHER VISHWABHARATHI HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, NEAR KARNATAKA DAIRY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, MALLASANDRA VILLAGE, TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S.S. PARIKSHIT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPT, OF EDUCATION Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9097 WP No. 19297 of 2013 M S BUILDING, BANGALORE-01 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PRIMARY EDUCATION NEW PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, TUMKUR DISTRICT TUMKUR-572101 4. THE SECRETARY VISHWABHARATHI HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, NEAR KARNATAKA DAIRY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, MALLASANDRA VILLAGE, TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT-572101 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PRATHIBHA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 3; SRI. M.C. VEERABHADRAIAH AND SRI. DEVARAJ V, ADVOCATES FOR RESPONDENT NO.4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR WRIT OR QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 DATED 05.07.2005 BEARING NO.ANU1:NYA:DAVE:83/03-04 VIDE ANNEXURE - E AND ALSO THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 DATED 17.12.2007 IN APPEAL NO.9/2007-08 VIDE ANNEXURE - F AND FURTHER DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3 TO - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9097 WP No. 19297 of 2013 APPROVE THE APPOINTMENT OF THE PETITIONERS IN THE POST OF ASST., TEACHER IN THE SCHOOL RUN BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioners have challenged an order bearing No. ಅನು1.ಾ.ಾೆ.83/03-04 dated 05.07.2005 passed by respondent No.3 as well as the order dated 17.12.2007 passed by respondent No.2 in Appeal No.9/2007-08. By the aforesaid order of respondent No.3, the order approving the appointment of petitioners was recalled. 2. The petitioners were employed as Assistant teachers in a school run by respondent No.4. Their appointment was approved by respondent No.3 on 07.08.1995. The respondent No.4 was granted aid by the State Government and therefore, the salary of the petitioners was paid till the year 2004, when their salary was withheld. The petitioners along with two others filed W.P.Nos.33177-80/2004 and this - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9097 WP No. 19297 of 2013 Court in terms of the order dated 28.01.2005 set aside the order withholding the salary of the petitioners and directed the respondents therein to pay salary. While disposing of the said writ petition, this Court observed that unless and until the approval of the appointment of the petitioners is validly recalled or annulled, the respondents cannot withhold the salary of the petitioners. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 issued a show- cause notice on 07.03.2005 on the ground that the approval of the appointment of the petitioners was not genuine and that they were not appointed against sanctioned post. The petitioners submitted their reply consequent to which, the respondent No.3 passed an order dated 05.07.2005 holding that the appointment of the petitioners was not in accordance with the rules and thus, recalled the order dated 18.04.1995 approving their appointment. The petitioners then challenged the said order in a proceedings under Section 131 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 before the respondent No.2, who upheld the order passed by the respondent No.3. 3. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioners are before this Court in this writ petition. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9097 WP No. 19297 of 2013 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the approval of the appointment of the petitioners was mooted by respondent No.4 after it furnished all required information and thereafter the respondent No.3 was duly satisfied about the process of appointment of the petitioners and therefore, the respondent No.3 could not have doubted the validity of the appointment of the petitioners. He therefore, contends that the impugned order passed by the respondent No.3 and upheld by the respondent No.2 deserves to be interfered with. 5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3 submitted that the orders impugned in this writ petition were challenged before this Court in W.P.No.39154/2012 and a Coordinate Bench of this Court in terms of the order dated 04.04.2024 noticed that the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with law before upholding the order withdrawing the approval of the appointment of the petitioner and accordingly, allowed the petition in part and set aside the impugned order passed by respondent No.2. She therefore, submits that this writ petition may also be disposed off on the same terms. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9097 WP No. 19297 of 2013 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 to 3. 7. A perusal of the order dated 04.04.2024 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.39154/2012 shows that what was challenged in the said writ petition is also challenged in this writ petition. Therefore, following the judgment rendered in W.P.No.39154/2012, this writ petition deserves to be allowed in part. 8. Hence, the following ORDER (i) This writ petition is allowed in part. (ii) The order dated 17.12.2007 passed by respondent No.2 in Appeal No.9/2007-08 is set aside. (iii) The case is remitted back to the respondent No.2, who shall hold fresh enquiry and dispose off the appeal by considering the observations made by this Court in W.P.No.39154/2012. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:9097 WP No. 19297 of 2013 (iv) The respondent No.2 is directed to dispose off the appeal within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (v) The parties are reserved liberty to raise additional grounds and place additional material before the respondent No.2, if they choose to do so. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33