- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16543 WP No. 103914 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 103914 OF 2022 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. BASAVARAJ S/O. NANDEPPA MANIBANAKAR AGE. 68 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED LECTURE, R/O. TAMBAKAD NAGAR 2ND CROSS, BEHIND COURT, HIREKERUR, TALUK. HIREKERUR, DIST. HAVERI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S. K. KAYAKMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETATY PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF VOCATION EDUCATION VISHWESHARAYYA MAIN TOWER 8TH FLOOR, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF VOCATION EDUCATION DEVAGIRI, D.C. OFFICE COMPOUND, HAVERI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP) VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.12.02 11:53:13 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16543 WP No. 103914 of 2022 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO: A. BY WAY OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI THIS HON BLE COURT BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE COMMUNICATION/ ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 THE SECRETARY, PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, BENGALURU BEARING NO.ED-25/TVE/2016 DATED 19.8.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-T. B. BY WAY OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS THIS HON BLE COURT BE PLEASED TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO RECONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15.06.2016 MADE BY THE WRIT PETITION VIDE ANNEXURE-S. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 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. “By way of writ of certiorari this Honble court be pleased to quash the communication/endorsement issued by the respondent no.1 the secretary, primary and secondary education department, Bengaluru bearing No.ED-25/TVE/2016 dated 19.8.2016 vide Annexure-T. b. By way of writ of mandamus this hon ble court be pleased to direct the respondent no.1 to reconsider the representation dated 15.06.2016 made by the writ petition vide Annexure-S. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16543 WP No. 103914 of 2022 c. Pass any other order/relief, that this Hon’ble Court deems fir in the nature and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity”. 2. Heard Sri.S.K.Kayakamath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Girija S. Hiremath, leaned HCGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the parties, in unison, submit that the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment rendered by the Coordinate Bench in W.P. No.110238/2016, disposed of on 16th March 2016. The Coordinate Bench held as follows: 1. “Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents and perused the records. 2. The petitioner claims that, he was appointed as a Full Time Lecturer in the 4th respondent, vide orders of the Government dated 24.06.1982 and his appointment was also approved. 3. Even after discharging his services for a period o f one year from 24.06.1982 for which period the full time payment was made as full time lecture. But subsequently he was denied with the full time scale attached to his post with ef fect from the year 1983, but he was continued with consolidated pay. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16543 WP No. 103914 of 2022 4. He also claims that, similarly placed employees by name Smt.Shyamalabai and Smt. Laxmibai whose appointment were also approved by the competent authority subsequent to the date of approval of the petitioner precisely that, was on 01.07.1982. They were provided with full time pay scale even from 01.07 .1982, by virtue o f the Government order in the year 1983. 5. Questioning this disparity, the petitioner has approached this court in W.P.No.103762/2016 and vide order dated 28 .04.2016, this court has directed the respondents herein who were also respondents therein, to consider the disparity between the above said lecturers and to take a decision and to pass appropriate orders on the representation a fresh to be made by the petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt o f a copy o f the said order. 6. In consideration of the above said direction issued by this court on representation of the petitioner the Government has passed an order dated 19.08.2016, wherein it is categorically stated that, earlier to 1982, the petitioner was receiving consolidated pay up to 1982-83. The same set of facts were also available even to Smt.Syamalabai and Smt.Laxmibai, it is evident from the records that earlier to their approval o f the post of the petitioner i.e., prior to 24.06 .1982, so far as the petitioner is concerned and on 01.07.1982, so far as the said other persons, i.e., Smt.Shyamalabai and Smt.Laxmibai are concerned, they were all receiving consolidated pay. 7. However the Government has stated that, so far as petitioner is concerned for the year 1982-1983 only - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16543 WP No. 103914 of 2022 as a special case the post o f petitioner was approved and salary was paid for the year 1982-83 only. But as could be seen from the orders of the Government i.e., specifically as per Annexure-J dated 06.02.2013 the Director, Vocational Education Directorate has requested the Secretary to the Government to treat the petitioner on par with Smt.Syamalabai and Smt.Laxmibai as the post of the petitioner was approved as a full time lecturer from 24.06.1982. There is no consideration so far as this particular aspect is concerned as to why from 1982-83 onwards even inspite of granting approval, the salaries have not been paid to the petitioner as full time lecturers and how there is a disparity between the said Smt.Shyamalabai and as well as Smt.Laxmibai with that of the petitioner is not explained in the order passed by the Government in order to deny such remedy to petitioner. 8. When once the approval o f the post is given and also recognized the petitioner also as full time lecturer the consequences would be, he is entitled for all the remedy thereafter. Unless the order passed approving the post of the petitioner, as a full time lecturer is set at rest or cancelled by Government by appropriate orders. Merely, the petitioner was not paid with the full time lecturer’s pay subsequent to 1982-83 does not mean to say that, and not sufficient to draw inference that earlier order of making him as full time lecturer is set aside by the Government. 9. Under the above said circumstances, the respondents have not properly considered the claim o f the petitioner. There fore, the same requires to be reconsider - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16543 WP No. 103914 of 2022 in view of the above said observation of this court hence the following: ORDER i. Petition is allowed. ii. Consequently, the respondents are hereby directed to reconsider the representation of the petitioner dated 15.06.2016 as per Annexure-S within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order in the light of the observation made in the order above.” 4. In the light of the issue being covered on all fours by the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench (supra), and for the same reasons, the present petition also stands disposed of. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE AC CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 120