- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3548 WP No. 104440 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 104440 OF 2022 (EDN-GIA) BETWEEN: 1. THE HEAD MASTER K.L.E. SOCIETY’S DR. DAYANAND HIREMATH KANNADA MEDIUM PRIMARY SCHOOL, KERUR, TQ. CHIKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591201 2. THE SECRETARY, BOARD OF MANAGEMENT, KARNATAKA LINGAYAT EDUCATION SOCIETY, COLLEGE ROAD, BELAGAVI-590001 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHIVRAJ S BALLOLI,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI RAJAGOUDA NARASAGOUDA PATIL AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC. NIL, R/O. YADUR, TQ. CHIKKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591201 2. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER, BEO OFFICE, CHIKODI, TQ. CHIKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591201 3. THE DIRECTOR, (PRIMARY EDUCATION) OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, R ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.02.27 17:00:48 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3548 WP No. 104440 of 2022 NRUPATUNGHA ROAD, BENGALURU-560001 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, CHIKODI, TQ. CHIKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI-590001 5. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PANCHAYATH, BELAGAVI-590001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH., AGA FOR R2 TO R4; SRI. CHETAN MUNNOLI., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1; SRI. V. SHIVARAJ HIREMATH., ADVOCATE FOR R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDAI PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08/06/2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED MEMBER EDUCATIONAL APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BELAGAVI SITTING AT CHIKODI IN EAT NO. 11/2008 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: i. Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned Judgment and Award dated 08.06.2022 passed by the learned Member, Educational Appellate Tribunal and VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi sitting at Chikodi in EAT No.11/2008 vide Annexure-A; - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3548 WP No. 104440 of 2022 ii. Issue any other writ or direction as deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court to meet the ends of justice and equity. 2. The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 8.6.2022 passed by the Additional District & Session Judge, Belagavi sitting at Chikodi in EAT No.11 of 2008. By virtue of the said order, the EAT had allowed the appeal filed by Respondent No.1 with cost of Rs.5,000/-, set aside the order dated 31.03.2008 passed by the petitioner dismissing the Respondent No.1 and directing the petitioner to reinstate the Respondent No.1 into service to the post of Assistant Teacher on the stipulated scale provided under Grant-in-Aid Code with all monetary and other benefits and backwages. 3. The submission of Sri.Shivaraj S.Balloli., learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Education Appellate Tribunal did not take into consideration that the respondent No.1 having crossed the age limit of 40 years was not eligible for being appointed - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3548 WP No. 104440 of 2022 under the Grant-in-Aid Scheme and as such the question of the EAT directing the petitioner to reinstate Respondent No.1 was improper. 4. It is on the basis of the submission that the learned AGA was called upon to obtain instruction and make his submission as to whether there was any embargo under the Grant-in-Aid Scheme for a teacher already employed being continued as a teacher in the school being admitted to Grant-in-Aid, if the teacher had crossed 40 years of age. 5. Sri.V.S.Kalasurmath., learned AGA upon instruction submitted that there is no such embargo on the continuation, however there is an embargo on a school admitted to Grant-in-Aid recruiting a teacher who is more than 40 years of age after the school is admitted to Grant-in-Aid. The said submission made by the learned AGA is fair, reasonable and logical inasmuch as merely because a school is admitted to Grant-in-Aid would not mean that a teacher already - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3548 WP No. 104440 of 2022 working in that school prior to the admission to Grant-in-Aid will have to be removed from service just because he has crossed 40 years on the school being admitted to Grant-in-Aid. 6. In that view of the matter, the only ground which has been raised in the present petition relating to the age is not sustainable, the petitioner could not have dismissed an employee/teacher working with the educational institution just on the above ground, as such there being no infirmity in the order passed by the EAT, the petitioner stands dismissed. 7. The time granted by the EAT is extended by 45 days for the petitioner to comply with the order of the EAT. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE SR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 138