- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17841 WP No. 100690 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 100690 OF 2023 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SHRI. MAHESH S/O DUNDAPPA SHEELAVANT AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR (ELECTRONICS AND COMMUNICATION) PROUDHADEVARAYA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, HOSAPETE-583201 TQ: HOSAPETE DIST: VIJAYANAGAR …PETITIONER (BY SMT. V VIDYA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. VEERASAIVA VIDYAVARDHAKA SANGHA GANDHI NAGAR, BALLARI-583201 TQ. DIST: BALLARI REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT 2. VEERASAIVA VIDYAVARDHAKA SANGHA GANDHI NAGAR, BALLARI-583201 TQ. DIST: BALLARI REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 3. THE CHAIRMAN GOVERNING COUNCIL PROUDADEVARAYA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY HOSAPETE-583201 RAKESH S HARIHAR Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.12.12 14:34:13 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17841 WP No. 100690 of 2023 TQ: HOSAPETE, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR 4. THE PRINCIPAL OF PROUDADEVARAYA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY HOSAPETE-583201 TQ: HOSAPETE, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR 5. ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION KARNATAKA REGION REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL DIRECTOR PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU-560001 6. THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION IN KARNATAKA PALACE ROAD, OPPOSITE MAHARANI COLLEGE, BENGALURU-560001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SRINIVAS B. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4; SMT. GIRIJA S HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R6; R5 SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 16.09.2022 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BALLARI IN MA (EAT). NO.2/2016 AS PER ANNEXURE- K IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO DENIAL TO GRANT AICTE PAY SCALE AND FULL BACK WAGES ALONG WITH OTHER MONETARY BENEFITS AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17841 WP No. 100690 of 2023 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer: 1. “Writ Of Certiorari or any other order or direction quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 16.09.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Principal District and Sessions Judge at Ballari in MA (EAT). No.2/2016 as per ANNEXURE- K in so far as it relates to denial to grant AICTE Pay Scale and full back wages along with other monetary benefits. 2. Issue any other appropriate Writ or Order or Direction which deems fit to grant by this Hon'ble Court under the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Heard Smt. V. Vidya, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Srinivas B. Naik, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4; and Smt. Girija S. Hiremath, learned HCGP for respondent No.6. 3. The petitioner is presently serving in the cadre of Associate Professor in the Department of Electronics and Communications. He joined the services of the respondent- Institution on 03.04.1995. In the year 2016, the petitioner was directed not to report for duty on the ground of a decrease in admissions for the academic year 2016–17. This action was - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17841 WP No. 100690 of 2023 challenged by the petitioner before the Educational Appellate Tribunal on 08.11.2016. The Educational Appellate Tribunal, by its order dated 16.09.2022, directed reinstatement of the petitioner into service without back wages and without considering the fact that he was entitled to All India Council for Technical Education (for short, ‘the AICTE’) pay scales. 4. It is this portion of the order that has been challenged by the petitioner in the present petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was directed to leave service without any rhyme or reason and, therefore, denial of back wages was wholly unjustified. It is contended that the petitioner was entitled to 100% back wages and to the AICTE pay scales, as his appointment was made under the AICTE scales. 6. Learned counsel Sri Srinivas Naik submits that the petitioner has not worked at all from 2016 to 2022. Therefore, the grant of 50% back wages itself is a windfall to the petitioner. Insofar as the AICTE pay scale is concerned, learned counsel submits that the petitioner was not appointed under the AICTE pay scale and, therefore, would not be entitled to the same. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17841 WP No. 100690 of 2023 7. The aforesaid facts lie in a narrow compass. Insofar as the claim for 100% back wages is concerned, the Tribunal, by assigning cogent reasons, has denied 50% of the back wages. Such denial does not warrant interference at the hands of this Court. 8. Insofar as the AICTE pay scale is concerned, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner was appointed in the institution under the AICTE pay scales. The appointment order reads as follows: “APPOINTMENT ORDER Sub.: Establishment Department of Electronics and Communication Engineering - Appointment Orders issued reg. Ref.: Resolutions of the Governing Body Meeting of the College held on 20.08.1999. --- With reference to the above, Sri Mahesh Shilavant is appointed as Lecturer in the Department of Electronics and Communication Engg. of this Institution with a salary of Rs.2,350/- per month in the AICTE Scale of Rs. 2,200-75-2,800- 100-4,000 plus other allowances as per, State Government Rules with effect from 01.08.1999. His service conditions are governed by Veerasaiva Vidyavardhaka Sangha’s Service Rules as existing and as may be revised from time to time. He shall execute an agreement with the Management on Non Judicial Stamp Paper of Rs.30/- to the effect that he shall abide by the Rules prescribed by the Veerasaiva Vidyavardhaka Sangha, Bellary. He has to report for duty to the Principal, Vijayanagar Engineering College, Bellary immediately. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17841 WP No. 100690 of 2023 He will be on probation for a period of 02 years from the date of reporting. To Sri Mahesh Shilavant, Lecturer in EaCE Dept., CHAIRMAN V E C, Bellary.” 9. In the light of the reinstatement directed, the Court ought to have considered that the petitioner was entitled to 50% back wages computed on the basis of the AICTE pay scales, and that the AICTE pay scales ought to have been restored to the petitioner. In view of the omission committed by the Tribunal, I deem it appropriate to allow the petition in part, directing grant of the AICTE pay scales for the period during which the petitioner was out of service, even for the purpose of computing the 50% back wages, and to regulate the pay scales thereafter in accordance with the AICTE norms. 10. In terms of the above observations, the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed in part. ii. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE AC/CT CNB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36