- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1217-DB RP No.200087 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR REVIEW PETITION NO.200087 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 586 009. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, TANTRIK SHIKSHANA BHAVAN PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 041. 3. THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E), KARNATAKA PARK HOUSE ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI Y.H.VIJAYKUMAR, A.A.G. A/W. SRI MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, A.G.A.) AND: 1. SHARAN S/O CHANDRASHEKHAR PADASHETTY AGE ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCC: ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR WORKSHOP SUPERINTENDENT IN THE Digitally signed by BASALINGAPPA SHIVARAJ DHUTTARGAON Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1217-DB RP No.200087 of 2024 DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING, P.D.A. ENGINEER COLLEGE, AIWAN-E-SHAHI AREA, KALABURAGI - 585 102. 2. THE HEKS PDA ENGINEER COLLEGE, (AUTONOMOUS BODY OF GOVERNMENT KARNATAKA) AIWAN E SHAHI AREA, KALABURAGI – 585 102. THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL. 3. THE HYDERABAD KARNATAKA EDUCATION SOCIETY, THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT, P.D.A. ENGINEERING COLLEGE CAMPUS, AIWAN-E-SHAHI AREA, KALABURAGI – 585 102. 4. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, KALABURAGI – 585 102. 5. THE CHAIRMAN GOVERNING BODY GOVERNING BODY, P.D.A. ENGINEERING COLLEGE CAMPUS, AIWAN-E-SHAHI AREA, KALABURAGI – 585 102. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.DIWAKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W. SRI PREETAM DEULGAONKAR, ADVOCATE) THIS REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC READ WITH 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 11.09.2024 PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN WRIT APPEAL NO.200134/2024 (S-RES), TO MEET THE REAL ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1217-DB RP No.200087 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) The present review petition has been filed seeking for review of the order passed on 11.09.2024 in W.A.No.200134/2024. 2. Sri. Y. H. Vijay Kumar, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of Sri. Mallikarjun Sahukar, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State has submitted that there appears to be some ambiguity in the observations made at Paragraph No.10 in the order in W.P.No.204935/2018 which has been affirmed by the Division Bench. 3. It is submitted that there has to be clarity as regards entitlement of the retiral benefits of the employee. Amongst the grounds that are raised in the review petition, it is also contended that the recruitment of the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1217-DB RP No.200087 of 2024 respondent – employee was not in accordance with the procedure; that the grant of approval was also contrary to the applicable law; that the case of Laxmidevamma (W.P.Nos. 51205/2015) sought to be relied upon is not of relevance to the present case; that the action taken by the State was in light of the audit objections raised; that the order of withdrawal of appointment was not solely due to non-completion of Ph.D within 7 years but on the ground that appointment was not as per the procedure for recruitment. 4. While the order passed in Writ Appeal has considered all contentions, we are of the view that in light of the narrow scope of review proceedings, the grounds urged in the review petition cannot be taken note of as it would have the effect of re-appreciating the legal contentions raised as if this Court were the Court of appeal. 5. However, insofar as the contention relating to the entitlement of retiral benefits of the employee who is the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1217-DB RP No.200087 of 2024 respondent, it is to be noticed that what was in question before the learned Single Judge was the validity of the order at Annexure-A dated 05.11.2018. The said order has been set aside by the learned Single Judge with a direction that in light of setting aside of the impugned order at Annexure-A, the employee is to be made good with all retiral benefits as is admissible in law. It is such understanding that has to be imputed to the order of the learned Single Judge which has been approved in the writ appeal proceedings. 6. The nature of retiral benefits was never in issue nor adverted to nor adjudicated upon. Pursuant to the impugned order in the writ proceedings being set aside and the petitioners’ service being declared to be regularized, the nature of retiral benefits are consequential benefits which the employee is entitled to as per the prevailing Rules. Such observation is made in order to address the grievance of the State as regards difficulties - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1217-DB RP No.200087 of 2024 they are facing in contempt proceedings. No further clarification is called for. 7. In light of the observations made above, the review petition is disposed off. Sd/- (S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE VP