- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17339 WP No. 106130 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 106130 OF 2025 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. MALLANAGOUDA SIDDANAGOUDA PATIL, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC: IN-CHARGE PRINCIPAL, KITTUR NADA VIDYAVARDHAK SANGHA, ARTS AND COMMERCE P.U.COLLEGE KITTUR, DIST.BELAGAVI- 590001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. H. M. DHARIGOND, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION AND LITERACY, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU- 560001. 2. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION (PRE UNIVERSITY) 18TH CORSS, MALLESHWARUM, BENGALURU- 560012. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION (PRE UNIVERSITY) KARNATAKA PUBLIC, SCHOOL COMPUND VADAGAUN, BELAGAVI, DIST- BELAGAVI- 560006. 4. THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION DHARWAD, DIST.DHARWAD- 580001. 5. THE CHAIRMAN KITTURU NADA LINGAYATH VIDYAVARDHAK SANGHA CHENNAMMA KITTUR RAKESH S HARIHAR Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Date: 2025.12.11 16:39:19 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17339 WP No. 106130 of 2025 DIST.BELAGAVI- 591115 6. SRI PRAKASH C SHIVANAVVANAVAR AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC. LECTURER IN ECONOMICS, KITTUR NADA VIDYAVARDHAK SANGHA ARTS AND COMMERCE P.U.COLLEGE KITTUR, DISTRICT.BELAGAVI- 590001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. P.G. CHIKKANARAGUND, ADVOCATE FOR R5; SRI. SANKET S. AMBALI, ADVOCATE FOR R6) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 4- 8-2025 PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT BEARING NO.E- 1173285/DPUE-EST 30DD(PPA)/3/2023-ADMN VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING 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. A writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 4-8-2025 passed by the second respondent Bearing No.E-1173285/DPUE-EST 30DD(PPA)/3/2023- ADMN vide ANNEXURE-A. b. A writ in the nature of mandamus direct the second respondent to approve the post of the petitioner as in- charge principal as appointed by the 5th Respondent on 4- 12-2013 vide ANNEXURE-G. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17339 WP No. 106130 of 2025 2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.H.M.Dharigond appearing for the petitioner, learned HCGP Smt.Girija S Hiremath for the respondent-State, learned counsel Sri.P.G.Chikkanaragund for respondent No.5 and the learned counsel Sri.Sanket S Ambali for respondent No.6. 3. The respondent No.5 appoints the petitioner as a Lecturer on temporary basis on 05.07.1993. His appointment comes to be approved by the State on 19.01.1995 and in the year 2013 is said to have been regularised in the Cadre of Lecturer by an order dated 13.03.2013. This remains the service record of the petitioner. 4. The contesting respondent No.6 enters the Institution on 02.06.2009. The claim of the respondent No.6 is that he should be appointed as Principal in-charge basis as in-charge Principles in all these Institutions are appointed on seniority basis. As the respondent No.6 had entered service on 02.06.2009, his claim always subsisted. The petitioner then submits a representation to the State to take his past service for all benefits, right from the date of his entry into service i.e. 05.07.1993 or from the date of approval, as the case would be on 19.01.1995. The said request is exceeded to by the State in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17339 WP No. 106130 of 2025 the light of the judgments rendered by the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court affirmed by the Division Bench and an SLP against which comes to be turned down. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent No.6 now seeks to distinguish the same, contending that the judgments were rendered only on pay, pension and all other terminal benefits and an enactment that was brought in 2014 is held to be unconstitutional and appeals against the said order is pending. The seniority issue or the taking the past service into consideration for the purpose of seniority and all other service benefits is not the one that is rendered in the Act nor while annulling the Act by the Co-ordinate Benches. 6. The said submission of the respondent No.6 is annexed for the reason that the Co-ordinate Bench holding the Act to be unconstitutional comes about in the year 2016. The petitioner's right did not flow from the said enactment. It flew from the judgments that were rendered by this Court in the year 2009-10, the Division Bench Judgment later, and the Apex Court turning down the SLP. All that led to the enactment of 2014. Therefore, the right of the petitioner was not in terms of the enactment of 2014, but prior to the said enactment. Whatever - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17339 WP No. 106130 of 2025 has happened prior to the said enactment, have all been protected by the judicial orders passed when the constitutional validity of the Act of 2014 was called in question. 7. In that light, the petitioner's service being taken into consideration for all purposes with effect from 19.01.1995, cannot mean that the 6th respondent, who comes into service of the Institution in the year 2009, could claim seniority over the petitioner for appointment to the post of in-charge Principal. A Principal an in-charge basis is made to officiate on seniority. If it is on seniority, it cannot be said that the 6th respondent is senior to the petitioner. However all the rights of the parties would be governed by what the Division Bench would hold while answering the order of the learned Single Judge, which held the Act No.7 of 2014, to be unconstitutional. 8. In the light of the aforesaid observation, the impugned order dated 04.08.2025 is rendered unsustainable. The unsustainability of it would lead to its obliteration. 9. In that light, the following: ORDER I. Petition is allowed. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17339 WP No. 106130 of 2025 II. The impugned order dated 04.08.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent stands quashed. III. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits. However, the parties should be governed by what the Division Bench would hold in the Writ Appeal No.2476/2015 pending. IV. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE KGK CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10