- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3895-DB WA No.100123 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR WRIT APPEAL NO. 100123 OF 2025 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SHRI VINAYAK VIDYAVARDHAK SANGHA @ MEDUR, TQ. RATTIHALLI, DIST. HAVERI R/BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI BASAVARAJ S/O SIDDAPPA SHIRAGAMBI, AGE: 70 YEARS, R/O MEDUR, TQ. RATTIHALLI, DIST. HAVERI-581210. - APPELLANT (BY SRI. S.G. KADADAKATTI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA RPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (PRIMARY AND SECONDARY), GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, MULTI STORE BUILDING, BENGALURU-01. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, RODDA ROAD, DHARWAD-580011. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, HAVERI DISTRICT, HAVERI-581110. Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3895-DB WA No.100123 of 2025 4. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER, TQ. HIREKERUR, DIST. HAVERI-581110. 5. LALITHABAI M.C., W/O DR. RAMESH NAIK D.J., AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC.: ASSISTANT TEACHER IN MATHEMATICS, R/O SRI GAJANANA HIGH SCHOOL, MEDUR, K/O MAHESH ANANDAPPA THIPPANNANAVAR, JANATA PLOT, NEAR GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL, MEDUR, TQ. RATTIHALLI, DIST. HAVERI-581210. - RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SMT. GAYATRI S.R., ADVOCATE FOR C/R5) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.02.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P. NO. 100488/2025 BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY & ETC., THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3895-DB WA No.100123 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) This intra Court appeal is as against the interim order dated 21.02.2025 in W.P. No. 100488/2025 filed by the fifth respondent calling in question the order dated 09.09.2023 – an order removing dismissal of the fifth respondent from service. The fifth respondent is appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Mathematics with the appellant. The Writ Court, by a detailed order, has issued interim direction to reinstate the petitioner forthwith and has directed the petition to be listed on 07.03.2025 for further hearing. 2. Sri S.G. Kadadakatti, the learned counsel for the appellant, Ms. Gayatri S.R and Sri Praveen K. Uppar, the learned Additional Government Advocate, for the other respondents, are heard. This Court must at the outset mention that the learned counsel do not dispute that there is a chequered history to the present dispute with the fifth respondent challenging the appellant’s decision to keep her under suspension and that this dispute is brought to a close with the closure of the contempt proceedings but the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3895-DB WA No.100123 of 2025 controversy about the fifth respondent’s dismissal has continued with she challenging the dismissal and therefore the petition in W.P. No. 100488/2025. 3. The fifth respondent is not dismissed from service because of the allegation of unauthorized absence for 11 [eleven] months and not because of any allegation involving moral turpitude or otherwise. The fifth respondent contends that her absence is not unauthorized; that she was constrained to go on matrimonial leave after making an application and that she was not permitted to report to duty after she completed her confinement and reported to duty. The merits of these rival claims will have to be examined for final adjudication. 4. The appellant’s grievance with the interim order is centered on the maintainability of the writ petition. The appellant contends there is an alternative remedy against the dismissal order under the Karnataka Education Act, 1983. This also will be considered by the writ Court given the law on when the writ court refuses to exercise - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3895-DB WA No.100123 of 2025 jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India because of the availability of an alternative remedy. On the question of interference with the writ Court’s order, given the context in which the fifth respondent is removed, this Court does not find that there is any illegality that would require interference at this stage. Hence, subject to all just exceptions in law, the writ appeal stands disposed of. Sd/- (B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE BVV, CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 6