- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16909 WP No. 100419 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 100419 OF 2018 (S-PRO) BETWEEN: MRS. LEENA D’SOUZA, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: ATTENDER, LIG-5, HUDCO COLONY, KHANAPUR, POST & TALUK BELAGAVI DISTRICT. … PETITIONER (BY SMT. PALLAVI S.PACHHAPURE FOR SRI. SRINAND A. PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE SECRETARY, MANAGING COMMITTEE FOR EDUCATION, ST. JOSEPH;S SOCIETY, CONVENT ROAD, BELAGAVI-590001. 2. THE HEAD MISTRESS, ST.JOSEPH’S CONVENT HIGH SCHOOL, CONVENT ROAD, CAMP, BELAGAVI-590001. … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. GAYATRI S.R., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE AWARD AND DECREE PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN EAT 23 / 2012 DATED 10.07.2017 WHICH IS AMENDED VIDE ORDER DATED 27.10.2017 BY ISSUING WRIT OF CERTIOORARI GRANTING FOLLOWING RELIEFS TO THE PETITIONER AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRL. HEARING B-GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16909 WP No. 100419 of 2018 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer: “a) Set aside the award and decree passed by IX Additional District and Sessions Judge and Addi M.A.C.T Belagavi in EAT appeal No. 23/2012 Dated 19-7-2017 which is corrected vide order dated27-10-2017 which are at annexure K and award dated 3-8-2017 passed by IX Additional District and Sessions Judge and Additional MACT, Belagavi which is at annexure L by issuing writ of certiorari. b) Set aside the order bearing nil dated 8-11- 2012 passed by the respondents which is at annexure E reducing rank of petitioner, declaring it as illegal and contrary to law by issuing writ of certiorari. c) The appellant may kindly be continued in service as per appointment order No.0/2/2/ /92-93dated 13-6-1992 which is at annexure A giving further promotion to the post of Assistant teacher with effect from 31-5-1999 i.e.(date of resolution for appointing new staff). d) Respondents be directed to pay difference of salary to the petitioner from 15-6-1992 till the date of reinstatement as per law. e) Compound interest at the rate of 24% per annum may kindly be paid on the monetary benefits payable by the respondents to petitioner from15-6-1992 till realization along with costs of this writ petition.” - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16909 WP No. 100419 of 2018 2. Heard Smt. Pallavi S.Pachhapure for Shri Srinand A.Pachhapure, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Gayatri S.R. learned counsel appearing for respondents. 3. The petitioner is appointed as an Attender in respondent No.2 - the St. Joseph's Convent School, Belagavi. The petitioner is said to have worked for 20 continuous years and approaches the Educational Appellate Tribunal seeking the benefit of retrospective regularisation. The Educational Appellate Tribunal has rejected the appeal on the score that the appeal was not maintainable under Section 94 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1992. In the year 1997, the post was approved and therefore, the petitioner was entitled for regularisation from the date of her initial appointment and it is not a case where the approval of the appointment of the petitioner has not come about. She would contend that the Educational Appellate Tribunal has erred in not considering these aspects in rejecting the case on its merit. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16909 WP No. 100419 of 2018 5. Per contra, learned counsel Smt. Gayathri S.R. appearing for the Institution would vehemently refute the submission contending that the petitioner cannot claim retrospective regularisation of the date of approval as a matter of right and therefore would submit that there is nothing wrong with the order passed by the Educational Appellate Tribunal. 6. Be that as it may. The proceedings before the Educational Appellate Tribunal would emanate from Section 94 of the Act. Section 94 of the Act does not clothe the Educational Appellate Tribunal to pass orders with regard to regularisation or retrospective regularisation as the case would be. Therefore, there can be no qualm about what the Educational Appellate Tribunal has held the appeal was undoubtedly not maintainable. But the petitioner cannot be rendered remediless. The petitioner is entitled to avail the remedy of filing an appeal under Section 130 of the Education Act before the State Government. 7. Reserving such liberty without interfering with the order of the Educational Appellate Tribunal and leaving all contentions open to be urged before the State, the petition stands disposed. In the event the appeal is filed in the next eight - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16909 WP No. 100419 of 2018 weeks, the appellate authority shall not reject the appeal on the score of delay, but shall consider it on merits as the petitioner was prosecuting the subject petition throughout and is entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. With the aforesaid observations, petition stands disposed. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE VNP / CT: ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4