- 1 - WA No.100028 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO.100028 OF 2024 (S-RES) BETWEEN 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, BENGALORE-560001. 2 . DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER, COLLEGE EDUCATION, BANGALORE-560001. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. G.K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) AND 1 . PRABHULING, S/O BASAVARAJU JABASHETTY, AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE, R/O VIDYANAGAR, MAHALINGAPUR 587312. 2 . THE MANAGEMENT OF KLE SOCIETIES, SRI CHANNAGIRISHWAR PRASADHIK ARTS AND COMMERCE COLLEGE, MAHALINGAPURA, R/BY ITS PRINCIPAL, MAHALINGAPURA-587312. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANANT P. SAVADI, ADVOCATE FOR R1) (NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.02.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.77031/2013 (S-RES) & ETC., MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - WA No.100028 of 2024 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 24.03.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, S.G. PANDIT, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA CAV JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT) The State authorities i.e., the Officers of the Education Department are before this Court in this intra-court appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Act, 1961, questioning the order dated 03.02.2023 passed in W.P. No.77031 of 2013, whereby the learned Single Judge set aside the order dated 25.02.2012 (Annexure-F) and directed respondent No.3 to extend all the benefits accrued to the petitioner along with other employees, who were appointed as per Annexure-B to the writ petition. 2. The parties to the proceedings would be referred to as they stood before the writ court. Appellants herein were the respondents, and respondent No.1 herein was the petitioner before the learned Single Judge. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner claims that he was appointed as an Assistant Librarian under Order - 3 - WA No.100028 of 2024 dated 05.11.1993 in respondent No.2-College and his appointment was approved under communication dated 31.01.1994. Thereafter, respondent No.2-institution was admitted to grant-in-aid by order dated 21.01.1995. It is stated that, along with other teaching and non-teaching staff, the petitioner’s name was also recommended for admitting to grant-in-aid as an Assistant Librarian. Under order dated 11.03.1996 (Annexure-R4), while approving the grand-in-aid to the teaching and non-teaching staff of respondent No.2- institution, the name of the petitioner was left out by mistake. The petitioner made a representation to include his name in the list of non-teaching staff, who were admitted to grant-in-aid, which was forwarded to the Commissioner of Collegiate Education under covering letter dated 04.03.2004 by respondent No.2. Under Annexure-F, dated 25.02.2012, the Director of Collegiate Education, Bengaluru, has communicated to the Joint Director, Department of Collegiate Education, Dharwad, that, in terms of Government Order dated 07.08.2003, vacant and unapproved posts of non-teaching staff as on 01.03.2001 shall be permanently unaided. Questioning the same, the petitioner was before the learned Single Jude in the above stated W.P. No.77031/2013. The learned Single - 4 - WA No.100028 of 2024 Judge was of the opinion that under Annexure-B, the name of the petitioner and others have been accepted by the Director of Collegiate Education for admitting them to grant-in-aid and further held that the reasons assigned by the State for non- approval of the name of the petitioner for admitting to grant-in- aid is arbitrary and unacceptable, and directed the respondents-authorities to extend all the benefits accrued to the petitioner along with other employees who were appointed as per Annexure-B to the writ petition. The learned Single Judge also awarded costs of Rs.10,000/- in favour of the petitioner. Questioning the same, the State authorities are in appeal. 4. Heard Sri. G.K.Hiregoudar, learned Government Advocate for the respondents/appellants, and Sri. Anant P.Savadi, learned counsel appearing for petitioner/respondent No.1. Perused the entire writ appeal papers. 5. Learned Government Advocate would submit that the petitioner was never admitted to grant-in-aid. He further submits that the petitioner claims that he was appointed as an Assistant Librarian and though his case was recommended for admitting to grant-in-aid, while approving, the Director of - 5 - WA No.100028 of 2024 Collegiate Education, has specifically not approved the name of the petitioner for admitting him to grant-in-aid. He submits that while admitting to grant-in-aid, the post of Librarian was approved, and the petitioner kept quite all along since March, 1996 and approached this Court only in the year 2013. It is submitted that the petitioner was aware of the fact that his name was not included in the list of grant-in-aid, but without challenging non-inclusion of his name to the grant-in-aid, the petitioner cannot contend that his name was left out while approving the list of teaching and non-teaching staff to grant-in-aid. Further, the learned Government Advocate points out that as held by the learned Single Judge, Annexure-B is not an order of approval of the teaching and non-teaching staff to grant-in-aid, but Annexure-B is only a letter from the Director of Collegiate Education to the Secretary, Education Department recommending the list of teaching and non-teaching staff for approval to grant-in-aid. He submits that, in pursuance of the said direction, on examination of the entire proposal, the Government by its order dated 30.01.1996 admitted only 8 teaching and 13 non-teaching staff for grant-in-aid. He submits that whereas the recommendation was for including 13 teaching staff and 18 non-teaching staff to grant-in-aid. It is - 6 - WA No.100028 of 2024 submitted that taking note of the students’ strength and financial condition, the State, initially, had admitted 8 teaching and 13 non-teaching staff. Therefore, he submits that while admitting the post of Librarian to grant-in-aid, the case of the petitioner, who was working as an Assistant Librarian, was not approved. Thus, learned Government Advocate submits that the learned Single Judge, on a wrong notion, opined that Annexure-B itself is an order of approval to grant-in-aid. Further learned Government Advocate would submit that the grant-in-aid is not a right and cannot be claimed by any person as a matter of right; extension of grant-in-aid is the prerogative of the Government and only on examining the entitlement, depending on other various factors and financial implications, the State Government would take a decision to admit or not to admit to grant-in-aid. Thus, he prays for allowing the writ appeal and setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 6. Per contra, Sri. Anant P.Savadi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would support the order of the learned Single Judge and submits that the name of the petitioner was recommended for approval to grant-in-aid, but by mistake the name of the petitioner was not included in the - 7 - WA No.100028 of 2024 list of teaching and non-teaching staff who were admitted to grant-in-aid. He invites attention of this Court to Annexure-E a letter dated 15.04.2011 addressed by the Director of the Collegiate Education to the Joint Director of Department of Collegiate Education, and submits that the Director has categorically stated that by oversight, the name of the petitioner is not included in the list of teaching and non- teaching staff for admitting them to grant-in-aid. He submits that the petitioner is working in respondent No.2-institution since 1996 and he would be entitled for admission to grant-in- aid. Learned counsel would submit that under Order dated 11.03.1996 (Annexure-R4) only 8 teaching staff and 13 non- teaching staff were admitted to grant-in-aid, but subsequently under Order dated 24.06.1996 as well as 05.05.1997 (Annexures-R5 & R6) certain other teaching staff were admitted to grant-in-aid and at that time also petitioner’s name was not included for approval of grant-in-aid. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the learned Single Judge was right in directing to extend all benefits accrued to the petitioner along with other employees, who were appointed as per Annexure-B to the writ petition. Thus, learned counsel would pray for dismissal of the writ appeal. - 8 - WA No.100028 of 2024 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ appeal papers, the only point which falls for consideration is, Whether the learned Single Judge is justified in directing the respondents-authorities to extend the benefits accrued to the petitioner along with other employees, who were appointed as per Annexure-B to the petition while setting aside the order dated 25.02.2012 Annexure-F? 8. The answer to the above point would be in the negative for the following reasons: (a) The learned counsel for the petitioner filed an application, dated 24.03.2025, for production of additional documents. Annexure-R1 produced along with the application would indicate that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Librarian on 05.11.1993 by respondent No.2-Management and his name was forwarded to the competent authority for approval. Annexure-R2 dated 31.01.1990 would indicate that the petitioner’s name was registered temporarily. Thereafter, respondent No.2-institution was admitted to grant-in-aid under Annexure-A dated 23.07.1995. A perusal of the said Government Order would indicate that respondent No.2-institution was admitted to grant-in-aid - 9 - WA No.100028 of 2024 without showing the number of teaching or non-teaching staff, whereas in respect of other institutions number of teaching and non-teaching staff is indicated. (b) The learned Single Judge proceeded to hold that under Annexure-B, the name of the petitioner, along with others, has been accepted by the Director of Collegiate Education for grant-in-aid. The said finding is contrary to Annexure-B itself. Annexure-B is a recommendation of the Director of Collegiate Education to the Secretary, Department of Collegiate Education, for admitting the teaching staff and non-teaching staff of respondent No.2- institution to grant-in-aid; it is not an order approving the grant-in-aid insofar as teaching and non-teaching staff. While recommendation was made to admit 13 teaching and 18 non-teaching staff to grant-in-aid, the Director of Collegiate Education under Order dated 11.03.1996 (Annexure-R4) has admitted only 8 teaching and 13 non-teaching staff to grant-in-aid. While approving or admitting the teaching and non-teaching staff to grant-in- aid, the Government has accorded permission to admit only the post of Librarian, and the name of the petitioner, who was working as an Assistant Librarian, was not - 10 - WA No.100028 of 2024 included, which means the case of the petitioner for approval to admit him to grant-in-aid is deemed to have been rejected. The petitioner never questioned non- inclusion of his name in the approved list of teaching and non-teaching staff to grant-in-aid till 2013 almost for nearly 15 years and by the said time much water has flown and the Government has taken a decision to treat all the non- teaching vacant and unapproved post as on 01.03.2001 to be permanently unaided. (c) The learned Single Judge was not right in holding that Annexure-B itself is approval of teaching and non-teaching staff to grant-in-aid. A reading of the said document would indicate that it is only a recommendation letter. The petitioner has produced order dated 11.03.1996 (Annexure-R4), wherein 8 teaching staff and 13 non- teaching staff are admitted to grant-in-aid. Thus, the learned Single Judge misdirected himself and proceeded to allow the writ petition based on Annexure-B which is wholly erroneous. (d) Moreover, the petitioner cannot, as a matter of right, claim grant-in-aid. The petitoiner’s case for admitting to grant - 11 - WA No.100028 of 2024 was rejected in the year 1996 itself and the petitioner slept over his right over a decade. The petitioner has approached the Court only after the policy decision of the State to treat non-teaching vacant/unapproved post to be permanently unaided. 9. For the reasons recorded above, the writ appeal deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the following: ORDER i) The writ appeal is allowed. ii) The order dated 03.02.2023 passed in W.P. No.77031 of 2013 is set aside. iii) It is open for the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy available in law. Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE kms CT:VP