- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12775 WP No. 102937 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.102937 OF 2023 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SUJATA D/O. VASANT KAMBLE, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. H.NO.14, BUTCHER MUTTON STREET CAMP, BELAGAVI-590001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.G.KADADAKATTI AND SRI. LINGESH V.KATTEMANE, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. THE PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR DEFENCE ESTATES SOUTHERN COMMAND, PUNE- 411001. 2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER Digitally signed by SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12775 WP No. 102937 of 2023 CANTONMENT BOARD BELAGAVI, CHAIRMAN OF MANAGING COMMITTEE OF CANTONMENT BOARD ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOL, B.C. 41, CAMP, BELAGAVI-590001. 3. THE HEAD MISTRESS CANTONMENT BOARD ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOL, B.C. 41, CAMP, BELAGAVI-590001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.B.KANAVI, CGSC FOR R1; SRI. AMOGH SOMANNAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 11.03.2022 PASSED BY IX ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AND MEMBER EDUCATIONAL APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI IN EAT.NO.04/2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-K AND THE ORAL ORDER OF TERMINATION DATED 27.01.2017 PASSED BY 2ND RESPONDENT AND CONFIRMED BY 3RD RESPONDENT BY ALLOWING WRIT PETITION IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12775 WP No. 102937 of 2023 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR) In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 11.03.2022 passed by IX Addl. District Judge and Member Educational Appellate Tribunal, Belagavi in EAT No. 04/2017 vide ANNEXURE-K and the oral order of termination dated 27.01.2017 passed by 2nd respondent and confirmed by 3rd respondent by allowing writ petition in the ends of justice and equity.. b) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate into the service of the petitioner and to award all consequential reliefs including continuity of service and back wages from the date of termination in the ends of justice and equity. c) Issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble court demes fit in the facts and circumstance of the case.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12775 WP No. 102937 of 2023 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that, the petitioner who claims to be an Assistant Teacher working under respondent Nos.2 and 3, filed an appeal in EAT.No.4/2017 before the XI Additional District Judge and Member, Educational Appellate Tribunal, Belagavi1, challenging an alleged order of dismissal dated 27.01.2017 said to have been passed by respondent No.2 and confirmed by respondent No.3 and for other reliefs. 4. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed their objections and contested the said appeal, during the course of which the Tribunal recorded oral and documentary evidence. However, while hearing the appeal, the Tribunal noticed that the appeal was not maintainable before the Tribunal under Section 94 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 and consequently dismissed the appeal by reserving liberty in favour of the appellant to take recourse to such remedy as available in law including filing an appeal / revision / review etc., before the competent authorities. While arriving at the said conclusion, the Tribunal held as under: 1 Hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal” for short - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12775 WP No. 102937 of 2023 “JUDGMENT The appellant being aggrieved by the order of termination dated 27.01.2017 passed by respondent No.2-Institution has filed this appeal by invoking the provisions of section 94 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983. 2. The applicant was appointed in the respondent No.2 Institution has filed the present appeal challenging the termination order dated 27.01.2017 by taking various contentions. 3. This appeal involves the question of maintainability raised by the respondents as such it requires to decide whether the appeal filed U/s. 94 is maintainable or not. If it is maintainable then the matter requires to be considered on merits. 4. Initially, it is necessary to consider the decision rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the matter of Management of M.S.Ramaiah Medical College and Hospital, Bengaluru Vs. Dr. M. Somashekhar. In the said case, the Hon’ble High Court of Karantaka considered the maintainability of appeal and laid down certain principles at para No.8 reads as here under: 8. In this context we may refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in The - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12775 WP No. 102937 of 2023 Principal, M.C. Jindal Public School and Ors. v. The Presiding Officer, Delhi School Tribunal and Ors. , wherein, Section 8(3) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 was considered. The said section provided that an employee of a recognised private school against whom an order of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank is passed, is entitled to file an appeal against such order to the Tribunal. Interpreting the said section, the Supreme Court, held that two conditions must co-exist for applicability of the said section: (i) the appellant should be an employee of a recognised private school; and (ii) such employee should be visited with eitherof the three major penalties of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank. The Supreme Court further held that where the impugned order is not one of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank, but an order simpliciter of termination of service, appeal will be incompetent. The said principle would apply in interpreting Section 94(1) of the Act, as the said section is in parimateria with Section 8(3) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973. A reading of Sub-section (1) of Section 94 with Section 92(1) in the light of the decision in The Principal's case, supra, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12775 WP No. 102937 of 2023 would make it clear that an appeal would lie under Section 94(1) where the order appealed against is a dismissal, removal or reduction, by way of or in the nature of penalty or punishment. This apart, the wording of Section 94(5) also makes it clear, that an appeal would lie either under Sub-section (1) or (5), only where order is only imposing a punishment or penalty. 8.1 In Anoop Jaiswal v. Government of India and Anr. , the Supreme Court held: "It is, therefore, now well-settled that where the form of the order is merely a camouflage for an order of dismissal for misconduct, it is always open to the Court before which the order is challenged to go behind the form and ascertain the true character of the order. If the Court holds that the order though in the form is merely a determination of employment is in reality a cloak for an order of punishment, the Court would not be debarred, merely because of the form of the order, in giving effect to the rights conferred by law upon the employee". The Supreme Court observed that though the order of discharge may be - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12775 WP No. 102937 of 2023 non-committal, it cannot stand alone; that the cause for the order will have to be taken into account; and if the Court, by reading the order of termination and the reason for termination together, reaches the conclusion that any act of misconduct alleged against the employee is the cause of the order and that but for that it would not have been passed, then it is inevitable that the order of discharge shouldfall to the ground as the employee has not been afforded a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. 8.2 In Ram Ekbal Sharma v. State of Bihar and Anr. , the Supreme Court reiterated the principle thus, while dealing with the case of a compulsory retirement: "... that even though the order is couched in innocuous language without making any imputations against the Government servant who is directed to be compulsorily retired from service, the Court, if challenged, in appropriate cases can lift the veil to find out whether the order is based on any misconduct of the Government servant concerned or the order has been made bona fide and not with any oblique or extraneous purposes. Mere form of the order in such cases - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12775 WP No. 102937 of 2023 cannot deter the Court from delving into the basis of the order if the order in question is challenged....". 8.3 The above principle was followed in High Court of Punjab and Haryana v. Ishwar Chand Jain, holding that what is material is the true character of the order and the circumstances in which it was passed and not the manner in which the order is disguised; and that if an order, innocuously worded, is in fact an order of removal from service, it cannot be sustained as it is not preceded by an enquiry. In Anand Cinema v. Mohan Tiwari 1993-I-LLJ-1105 (MP): 1993 Lab. I.C. 651 (MP), the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that an innocuous order of termination of service, in fact founded on misconduct, without holding domestic enquiry, cannot be termed as retrenchment or termination simpliciter. 5. From the above settled principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, it is clear that the Court can go beyond the order or termination to find out whether the termination for misconduct, misdomer or based on victimization otherwise than termination - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12775 WP No. 102937 of 2023 simpliciter. 6. To consider the appeal with reference to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka it is necessary to mention the brief facts of the case are here under : The appellant applied for the post of Assistant teacher pursuant to the advertisement published by the respondent No.2 in the daily news-paper “Tarun Bharat” dated 31.03.2010 and was qualified in the interview held on 15.06.2010 on contract basis on a fixed monthly salary of Rs. 5,000/- and according to the appointment letter dated 02.07.2010 she had produced all the qualifying certificates to the satisfaction of the respondent No.2. In response to the appointment letter the appellant after going through medical examination she joined the duties from 03.07.2010 by submitting joining report. The appellant was appointed on contract basis and no renewal of contract and further every time fresh contract. There is no continuity of service, further the appellant has not shown as Permanent Employee/ Staff with various authorities it is a termination simpliciter based on the clauses of appointment order he was orally terminated on 27.01.2017. 7. With these facts, the contentions - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12775 WP No. 102937 of 2023 raised by the respondents it is a termination simpliciter based on theclauses of order of appointment, as the appellant was appointed for a specific period on completion of the term they were terminated. 8. During the pendency of the appeal the appellant filed IA No.I for stay of the order of oral termination passed by the R2 dated 27.01.2017 by permitting him to attend the duties and IA No.II to stay the employment notice dated 04.11.2016 Published in Tarun Bharath dated 06.11.2016 and corrigendum dated 17.12.16. At that time my predecessor in office has passed the order the said IA’s to be considered while deciding the appeal on merits. 9. The appellant examined himself as PW1 and marked Ex.P1 to P-26. On behalf of the respondents examined one witness and marked Ex.R1 to R-5. Ex.P-1 to 3 are Paper publication in Marathi daily news-paper Tarun Bharat dated 31.03.2016, 06.11.2016 and 17.12.2016 respectively. Ex.P-4 is letter dated 03.07.2010, Ex.P-5 is 3 Photos, Ex.P-5(a) is Bio-data, Ex.P-6 is 2 Laboratory reports, Ex.P-7 is interview letter, Ex.P-8 is Appointment Letter dated 02.07.2010, Ex.P-9 is 3 Photos, Ex.P-10 is Attested Photo Copies, Ex.P-11 is Letter dated 18.01.2017, Ex.P-12 is Postal acknowledgment - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12775 WP No. 102937 of 2023 and receipt, Ex.P-13 is RTI Letter dated 08.01.2016, Ex.P-14 postal receipt and postal order, Ex.P-15 is Reply from RTI application and documents, Ex.P-16 is copy of order of government (Gazette), Ex.P-17 is Commissioner Office Letter dated 13.05.2014, Ex.P-18 is Deputy Director’s Letter, Ex.P-19 is BEO letter, Ex.P-20 acknowledgment letter dated 23.11.2012, Ex.P-21 is online application, Ex.P-22 is CBSE Application Letter, Ex.P-23 is CBSE application and By-Laws, Ex.P-24 is CBSE application and Documents, Ex.P- 25 is Register regarding Mid-Day-Meals from government of education, Ex.P-26 is Central Bank of India Passbook, Ex.P-27 is Letter. 10. On going through the evidence led by the parties and also the documents filed and marked therein, no material to bring the appeal within the ambit/scope of Sec.94 of Karnataka Evidence Act, so that to consider the appeal is maintainable before this Court/E.A.T. 11. Since, appeal is considered with regard to maintainability, in the event of it is not maintainable appellant has remedy before the competent authority in view Sec.130-133 of Karnataka Education Act,. Onconsidering the evidence, I find it difficult to accept the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant to arrive at a conclusion that the oral - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12775 WP No. 102937 of 2023 termination is for misconduct at the circumstances the evidence laid by the parties not considered at length as any consideration made while deciding the maintainability it may prejudiced the case of the parties when they approach the competent authorities. 12. During the course of argument the learned counsel for the appellant relied on the following decision; The decisions referred to by the appellate counsel are as here under:- 1. Cantonment Board of Deolali V/S Usha Devidas Dongre and another, reported in (1993) 2 MHLJ 74. 2. Army Public School & Anr. V/S Smt. Satya Chhitaka & Anr. Decided on 25 August 2015. 3. AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 3546. 4. 2009 STPL 11592 Karnataka. 5. 2018 STPL 10114 SC. 6. Gazette of India dated 27.08.2009. 7. Cantonment Funds Servants Rule, 1937. 13. All the above cases relied upon the appellant are not applicable to the case on hand since all those arenot on the issue of maintainability of appeal before the Education Appellate Tribunal. On other hand, the decision rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka M.S. Ramayya Medical College and Hospital, Bengaluru Vs - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12775 WP No. 102937 of 2023 Dr.M.Somashekhar is applicable to the case on hand. 14. Under the circumstances since, I am of the view that the appellant is not made out a case for holding appeal is maintainable, leaving open all the contentions urged by the parties this appeal deserves to be rejected with a liberty to approach the competent authorities for the reliefs sought under the provision of Karnataka Education Act. Hence, I pass the following: ORDER Appeal filed by the appellant U/s.94 of Karnataka Education Act is not maintainable. Hence it is rejected. However, rejection of this appeal will not come in the way of filling appeal/revision/review before the competent authorities. Since, appellant before this tribunal agitating the issue, if theappellant approaches the competent authority, it is open for the competent authorities to condone the delay considering the fact that the appellant is before the Appellate Tribunal till now and prosecuting the appeal. Considering the delay if any be liberally construed. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12775 WP No. 102937 of 2023 No order as to cost. Draw award accordingly.” 5. Upon reconsideration, reevaluation and re- appreciation of the entire material on record including the impugned order, I am of the view that the Tribunal did not commit any error in relegating the petitioner to avail her remedy before the competent authority by passing the impugned orders, which does not warrant interference by this Court in the present petition, which deserves to be disposed of by issuing certain directions. 6. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER 1. Petition is hereby disposed of without interfering with the impugned order. 2. Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to take recourse to such remedy as available in law including filing an appeal / review / revision before the Competent Authorities / Forums within a period of 3 months from today. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12775 WP No. 102937 of 2023 3. If the petitioner filed such an appeal / review / revision before the Competent Authorities/ Forums within a period of 3 months, the delay from 27.01.2017 till this day shall stand excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. 4. Subject to the aforesaid directions and liberty reserved in favour of the petitioner, petition stands disposed of. In the event the petitioner files such appeal / review / revision as stated supra, the Competent Authorities/Forums shall dispose of the same within a period of 6 months from the date on which the petitioner files such appeal / review / revision. Sd/- (S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE EM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7