- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14981 WP No. 104205 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 104205 OF 2022 (S-PRO) BETWEEN: VITTAL BHARMAPPA ARAHUNASHI, AGE. 54 YEARS, OCC. COLLEGE PRINCIPAL, R/O. SIGIKERI CROSS, BAGALKOT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M. B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, M.S BUILDING, BENGALURU 560001, BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF PRE UNIVERSITY EDUCATION, 18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU – 560 001. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, PRE UNIVERSITY EDUCATION, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BHAVAN, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOTE 587 101. 4. ADARSH VIDYAVARDHAK SANGHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, BEVUR – 587 101, TQ & DIST: BAGALKOT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3; R4 – SERVED) Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14981 WP No. 104205 of 2022 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 29.04.2022 BEARING NO.¥À¥ÀƲE¨Á/J1/E©-0108/zÉʲC£Àħ/2021-22 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE PROPOSAL AT ANNEXURE-C AND APPROVE THE SAME AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING B GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer: A. Issue writ of certiorari quashing the communication issued by the 3rd respondent dated 29.04.2022 bearing No.¥À¥ÀƲE¨Á/J1/E©-0108/ zÉʲC£Àħ / 2021-22 produced at Annexure-D. B. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to consider the proposal at Annexure- C and approve the same; C. Issue such other writ or order or direction as deemed fit in the interest of justice and equity. 2. Heard learned counsel Sri.Mallikarjunswami B. Hiremath for the petitioner and the learned HCGP Smt.Girija S.Hiremath appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14981 WP No. 104205 of 2022 3. Tracing the history of the rights of the parties in the present case is unnecessary. Therefore, it would suffice if the narration would begin from 21.10.2004, when the petitioner in Writ Petition No.102616 of 2025 comes to be appointed as a History Lecturer against a backlog vacancy in the respondent No.4 - Institution. The State is said to have issued certain guidelines for promotion to the post of Principal of a Pre- University College. The guidelines are dated 20.01.2012. 4. The 5th respondent, the petitioner in the companion petition is appointed as a Kannada Teacher in the High School run by the 4th respondent. Owing to retirement of one G.S.Bijapur, who retired on attaining the superannuation on 29.02.2020, the 4th respondent is said to have later promoted the 5th respondent to the post of Lecturer in Kannada and is posted in the said Institution. The promotion of the 5th respondent to the post of Lecturer in Kannada is said to have been approved by the Department. On 04.12.2022 one G.S. Bijapur, senior most lecturer, who was working as a Principal, retires on attaining the age of superannuation. On the retirement of the said incumbent, it transpires that the petitioner was placed as in-charge Principal and the said placement was sent for - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14981 WP No. 104205 of 2022 approval to the hands of the State. The State has denied approval on the score that the petitioner was only an in-charge Principal and could not be directed to be granted the post of Principal on officiating basis. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri.Mallikarjunswami Hiremath would seek to project several grounds. The facts are undisputed. The petitioner was always an in-charge Principal in contradistinction to what the petitioner was in the companion petitions. In the light of the approval being rejected by the State, which is in tune with law, as the petitioner had not gained the eligibility of being appointed as a regular Principal, an in-charge Principal cannot claim that the non- approval of his appointment as a regular Principal is contrary to law. 6. In that light, the petitioner does not deserve any indulgence as he is an in-charge principal only from 08.02.2022. Finding no merit in the petition, petition stands dismissed. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE KGK/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0