- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35918-DB WA No. 383 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI WRIT APPEAL NO. 383 OF 2025 (EDN-RES) BETWEEN: S. MANASA EDUCATION SOCIETY (R), ALDUR, SAKALESHPUR, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 134. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. …APPELLANT (BY SRI SRIKANTH M P, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, M.S BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, SCHOOL EDUCATION AND LITERACY DEPARTMENT, NEW PUBLIC OFFICES, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. 3. THE DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT SCHOOL EDUCATION AND LITERACY DEPARTMENT, NEW PUBLIC OFFICES, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT Digitally signed by AMBIKA H B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35918-DB WA No. 383 of 2025 SCHOOL EDUCATION AND LITERACY DEPARTMENT, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 101. 5. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 101. 6. SRI CHANDRASHEKAR A B, S/O BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER (ARTS), S MANASA HIGH SCHOOL, ALDUR-577 111. CHICKMAGALUR TALUK AND DISTRICT. 7. SRI SATHYANARAYANA M N, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER (SCIENCE-PCM) S MANASA HIGH SCHOOL, ALDUR-577 111. CHICKMAGALUR TALUK AND DISTRICT. 8. SRI KRISHNAPPA S PUJARY, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER (SCIENCE-CBZ), S MANASA HIGH SCHOOL, ALDUR-577 111, CHICKMAGALUR TALUK AND DISTRICT. 9. SRI MUNISWAMY, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, WORKING AS PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER GRADE-I, S MANASA HIGH SCHOOL, ALDUR-577 111, CHICKMAGALUR TALUK AND DISTRICT. 10. SRI MAHENDRA H K, S/O KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, WORKIGN AS ASSISTANT TEAHCER [KANNADA], GOVT. PRE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, [HIGH SCHOOL DIVISION], ALDUR-577 111, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK AND DISTRICT. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35918-DB WA No. 383 of 2025 11. SRI IRAYYA SANGAYYA HIREMATH, S/O SANGAYYA HIREMATH, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER (ENGLISH), GOVT. PRE UNIVERSARY COLLEGE, [HIGH SCHOOL DIVISION], ALDUR-577 111, CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK AND DISTRICT. 12. SRI T S MANJUNATHA, S/O NINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, WORKING AS SECOND DIVIISON ASSISTANT, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPT. OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.S HARISH, G A FOR R-1 TO 5; SRI ANIL KUMAR.A.S, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-6 TO 9; SRI PARAMESHWARAPPA C, ADVOCATE FOR R-10 TO 12) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 23.01.2025 OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE PASSED IN WP No- 18419/2024 (EDN-RES). THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI) 1. For the reasons stated in the affidavit accompanying the application, IA No.3/2025 is allowed. Delay of 09 days in filing the appeal is condoned. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35918-DB WA No. 383 of 2025 2. Being aggrieved by the order dated 23.01.2025 [impugned order] passed in Writ Petition No.18419/2024 [EDN-RES] captioned S. Manasa Education Society (R) v. The State of Karnataka, by learned Single Judge of this Court, the appellant is before this Court in this intra Court appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961. 3. The appellant claiming to be an educational Society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, and running the School, had approached the learned Single Judge in the above writ petition with the following prayers: "a. Direct respondent Nos.1 to 5 to consider the representations dated 05.07.2024 made vide Annexure-M, M1, M2 and M3. b. Grant approval for the disciplinary action against respondent nos. 6 to 9. ba. Direct initiation of appropriate disciplinary action against the Respondents No. 4 and 5 for colluding with the Respondents No. 6 to 9 to ensure closure of the institution Manasa High School, Aldur, Chikmagaluru Taluk and District run by the Petitioner Management. bb. Quash the Memorandum bearing No. A2. Sha. Shi. E./Aa. Nu. Sha. Ve.Bi. Paa. 93/2023-24 dated 05.07.2024, Relieving Order bearing No. A2/Saa. Shi.E/Aa. Nu. Sha. Ve. Bi. Paa. 93/2023-24/217/20.08.2024 dated 20.08.2024 issued by the Respondent No.5 vide Annexures-Q, R and S respectively with regard to transfer of teachers of the Institution run by the petitioner to other institution treated as excess. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35918-DB WA No. 383 of 2025 c. Direct respondent nos. 4 and 5 to ensure effective and smooth running of S. Manasa High School, Aldur, Chikkamagalur Taluk and District run by the petitioner management by ensuring protection to the petitioner management and the students of the institution. d. Consequential relief or any other appropriate order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the ends of justice and equity." 4. The appellant claimed that it is running three Educational Institutions which are aided by the Government apart from a few other Educational Institutions at Arehally, Belur Taluk, Hassan District. Though the recognition was granted to Manasa High School, Aldur, Chikkamagaluru under the provisions of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, [the Act] which was in force until the year 2023-24, the management moved the Government for salary grants in the year 2009. The Government approved the posts of eight teaching staff and one non-teaching staff without salary grant. Sanction was accorded by the Government for the Grant-in-Aid in the year 2013 in respect of five teaching staff and one non-teaching staff. 5. Some disputes arose between the staff concerning the posts which were included for salary grant. It was contended that the appointment of respondent No.6, who was actually appointed as - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35918-DB WA No. 383 of 2025 Assistant Teacher in English was approved as Assistant Teacher in Arts with salary grant. Another teacher Sri Vishwanath S.K., who was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Arts was also approved but without salary grant. He questioned the same in Writ Petition No.36001/2013 and when the said writ petition was pending, respondent No.6 and other teachers apprehended that their appointments may be at stake and as such, they connived together and approached parents of the students and spread a rumour that the School is likely to be closed down. As a result, there was a panic among the parents of students of the said School and they started withdrawing their children from the Institution. As a result, about 60 (sixty) students withdrawn from the School by their parents. The conduct of the teachers came to the notice of the institution when one of the parents complained of the pressure tactics brought out by the teachers. 6. The appellant also contended that online Students Achievement Tracking System [SATS], showed a drastic withdrawal depleting the students strength of the institution, which would result in a depleted working load, resulting in reduction in the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35918-DB WA No. 383 of 2025 strength of the teachers and thereby forcing the Government to transfer the teachers who were under the Grant- in- Aid scheme. 7. It was alleged that certain officials of the Department were encouraging the teachers who had connived together in this regard. It was contended that such act of the teachers and some of the officials of the Government was contrary to the interest of the Institution. In this regard, the appellant-Education Society submitted a representation to the Government as well as Lokayuktha to initiate appropriate action against the conniving teachers as per Annexure-M on 05.07.2024. 8. It was contended that despite such representation having been submitted, no action was taken by the official respondents. It was further alleged that respondent No.5- Block Education Officer [BEO] issued certain directions transferring the teachers of the institution to some other institutions on 05.07.2024 and 12.07.2024 [Annexures-Q and R]. Despite the appellant bringing to the notice of the Government Officials, especially, respondent Nos.4 and 5, they neither permitted the appellant to initiate any action nor they initiated any action. It was contended that the appellant taking into - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35918-DB WA No. 383 of 2025 account the conduct of the teachers, had terminated the services of respondents No.6 to 9 on 19.06.2024. 9. However, respondent Nos.4 and 5 issued a communication dated 29.06.2024 stating that no such termination was possible without following statutory requirements for termination. It was alleged that the official respondents were protecting the said teachers who were conniving together and had forced the parents to withdraw their wards causing harm and loss to the institution in terms of the reputation as well as in other aspects. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that an interim order was granted by the learned Single Judge staying the effect of the transfer of the teachers to other institutions and respondent Nos.4 and 5 had filed an application IA No.4/2024 for vacating the stay. The said interlocutory application was heard and when orders were to be passed on the said application, the learned Single Judge, finally disposed off the writ petition, hastily, by the impugned order. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge had not heard the entire writ petition finally, and therefore, the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35918-DB WA No. 383 of 2025 impugned order of the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside. 11. Insofar as the merits are concerned, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that staff of the institution and the teachers have preferred appeals before the Educational Appellate Tribunal, questioning the termination of their services and there is a nexus between respondent Nos. 6 to 12 and the official respondent Nos.4 and 5. He further submits that respondent Nos.4 and 5 also connived with the other teachers in misleading the parents of the wards of the institution claiming that the institution will be closed and facilitated the withdrawal of the wards from the said school by allowing them to obtain the transfer certificates. It is submitted that one of the parent had filed complaint to the jurisdictional police and a FIR was also registered by police which was not at all considered by the learned Single Judge. 12. It is submitted that prima facie, it is evident that respondent Nos.6 to 11 are conniving with respondent Nos.4 and 5 and the appellant had sought post facto permission with regard to the disciplinary action which was not considered by the official - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35918-DB WA No. 383 of 2025 respondents. He further submitted that such reliefs cannot be sought before the Educational Appellate Tribunal since Section 94 of the Act, provides for assailing the dismissal, removal and reduction in rank of an employee of a private educational institution. 13. It is contended that the specific case of the appellant is that, along with the management, it is the duty of the staff of the institution to ensure that the institution runs smoothly and the staff of the institution should have continued along with the management to ensure the same. Unfortunately, to overcome situation of suffering of an adverse order being passed in Writ Petition No. 36001/2013, they have resorted to spreading false propaganda against the institution. Therefore, the order transferring the teachers to other institutions due to depleted strength of the students is illegal and the same is liable to be quashed. 14. Learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5 would submit that, pursuant to certain complaints against the management by the parents of the students as well as the teachers of the institution, the official respondents had visited - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35918-DB WA No. 383 of 2025 the School and had submitted reports. Those reports indicated that the Head Mistress, who was appointed as Hindi teacher, was not teaching the students. On the other hand, she had appointed another teacher, who was also not coming to the School regularly. The BEO [respondent No.5] had issued notices to the appellant Institution. It is submitted that due to the mismanagement of the institution, the students started withdrawing from the School and have taken voluntary transfer to other schools in the vicinity. Since, there is severe drop in the student strength, there was no workload for the teachers who were under the salary grant of the Government. However, the appellant institution had terminated the services of the four teachers [respondent Nos. 6 to 9], which was taken up with the Deputy Director, who issued a show cause notice to the School to reinstate them since the required statutory procedure was not followed in terminating them. The appellant institution had not instituted any disciplinary action as required under law and abruptly, by issuing a letter, the services of the teachers who were subjected to Grant- in- aid were terminated. Therefore, such termination could not have been accepted by the official respondents. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35918-DB WA No. 383 of 2025 15. He further submits that the Head Mistress who was responsible for running the school had not taken any action and there were several complaints against the management of the school. It is submitted that depleted strength of the students forced the Department to transfer the teachers to other Schools in the vicinity. It is also submitted that the illegal termination could not have been approved by the respondents and as such, the petition requires to be dismissed. 16. The learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.6 to 9 would submit that the appellant was not running the School in a proper manner and the lacunae in the management of the School was noticed by the officials who had visited the school and had submitted a report which can be found at Annexures-R2 and R7. 17. It is submitted that the termination of the services of respondent Nos.6 to 9 has been challenged by them before the Educational Appellate Tribunal, which is pending to be heard. Therefore, when the termination is questioned by them and it was found that the termination was not in accordance with law by instituting disciplinary proceeding. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35918-DB WA No. 383 of 2025 18. At the outset, we are not convinced by the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant in seeking the reliefs as mentioned in the writ petition. 19. The first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is, the learned Single Judge could not have disposed of the writ petition on merits when he had not heard the arguments on the merits of the matter, but it was on IA No.4/2024. 20. The learned Single Judge has considered the merits of the petition while he was hearing IA No.4/2024, by which time, objections statement filed by respondents was on record. The interim stay was in respect of Annexures-Q and R, which are the transfer orders of respondent Nos. 6 to 9 and 10 to 12. Therefore, we are not inclined to accept this submission that the appellant was put to any prejudice in disposing of the main petition. Since we have heard the appeal on merits, this grievance does not survive. 21. The first relief sought by the appellant [petitioner] in the writ petition is to direct respondent Nos.1 to 5 to consider their representation dated 05.07.2024 as per Annexure-M, M1, M2 and M3 [in fact, the representation is at Annexure-M and M1 to M4 are - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35918-DB WA No. 383 of 2025 only acknowledgements for having served it on respondent Nos. 2 to 5]. The said representation, requests respondent Nos. 2 to 5 to curb the propaganda of respondent Nos.6 to 9 in spreading the rumor that the School is going to be closed soon and to infuse confidence in the parents of the students not to seek transfer certificates of the students. It further seek directions to respondent Nos. 6 to 9 in this regard. It calls upon respondent Nos.2 to 5 to take action against the officials of the Department from resisting conniving with respondent Nos.6 to 9 failing which, the appellant would be constrained to approach the Courts. 22. It is worth noting that respondent Nos.6 to 9 were dismissed by a letter dated 19.06.2024, much prior to the representation dated 05.07.2024 and therefore, they were not on the rolls of the School run by the appellant. As such, they had no role to play in the school. 23. In fact, much prior to the representation at Annexure-M, students and respondent Nos.6 to 11 had made representation to respondent No.5 citing several instances of being harassed by the Management, pursuant to which, a spot inspection was made and - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35918-DB WA No. 383 of 2025 a report was submitted as per Annexure-R2. Apart from that, about 83 students had also submitted a representation as per Annexure-R3 on 15.02.2024 that the Head Mistress was not attending the School and she was not teaching any subject. This was also the part of the report at Annexure-R2. Thereafter, show cause notices were issued by respondent No.4 on 05.03.2024, 30.03.2024 to the appellant and ultimately, respondent No.5 informed respondent No.4 on 04.05.2024 that the appellant had not responded to the show cause notices and as such, an Administrator may be appointed and the Grant- in- aid to the post of Head mistress may be withdrawn. 24. Thereafter, on 11.07.2024, respondent No.5 noticed from the SATS that the students’ strength had depleted and as such, respondent Nos. 6 to 9 may be transferred to some other school temporarily. 25. In view of the above circumstances, question of directing respondent Nos.1 to 5 to consider the representation as per Annexure-M would not arise. The appellant had not replied to the - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35918-DB WA No. 383 of 2025 show cause notices issued by respondent No.5 and had not complied the observations made in the report dated 20.02.2024. 26. The second relief sought by the appellant is to grant permission to institute appropriate disciplinary action against respondent Nos.4 and 5 and also respondent Nos. 6 to 9. Obviously, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are not the employees of the appellant and there is no discernible material to show that there was any connivance between respondent Nos.4 and 5 and respondent Nos.6 to 9. There is no prima facie material to accede to this prayer. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 are the Government Officials, who had acted upon certain complaints received from respondent Nos. 6 to 9 and the students of the School of the appellant. 27. Respondent Nos. 6 to 9 have been terminated from service by letter dated 19.06.2024. Obviously, termination of respondent Nos.6 to 9 should have been preceded by an enquiry as contemplated under the Rules and the conditions imposed while admitting the School of the appellant to the Grant-in-Aid. Condition No.33 of the Government Order at Annexure-G dated 09.07.2013, - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35918-DB WA No. 383 of 2025 imposes that 'any termination should be in accordance with the Rules framed under Section 92 of the Karnataka Education Act'. Therefore, the termination having preceded the request for institution of the disciplinary action, said prayer recedes to the oblivion. 28. The third aspect to be considered is, whether the transfer orders at Annexure-Q pertaining to respondent Nos. 6 to 9 and Annexure- R, pertaining to respondent Nos. 10 to 12 are to be quashed. 29. Evidently, the appellant has terminated the services of respondent Nos.6 to 9 by order dated 19.06.2024, which is now before the Educational Appellate Tribunal in EAT Nos. 1 to 4/2024. Therefore, this prayer does not survive for consideration. 30. The fourth aspect is, whether respondent Nos.4 and 5 have any role to play in effective and smooth running of the institution run by the appellant. 31. The appellant is responsible for running of the institution as per the Rules framed under Section 92 of the Act and is responsible for day today management of the School. Respondent - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35918-DB WA No. 383 of 2025 Nos.4 and 5 are to supervise the same in the light of the provisions contained under the Act and the Rules framed there under. The provisions of the Karnataka Education Act, stipulate certain set of conditions to be followed by schools which have the recognition, but are not under the Grant- in- Aid. When the Grant- in- Aid is accorded, certain additional set of rules governing the service conditions of the teachers appointed come in play. Obviously, respondent Nos.4 and 5 had noticed several lacunae on the part of the appellant as mentioned in the show cause notices. None of these were answered by the appellant but, on the other hand, the appellant is seeking co-operation from respondent Nos.2 to 5 and directions to run the School smoothly. Annexure-M, representation is in the form of a legal notice alleging the connivance of respondent Nos.4 and 5 with respondent Nos.6 to 9. Therefore, it is the appellant who has to ensure an effective management of the School, in accordance with the Grant- in-Aid conditions and provisions of the Act. 32. The contention of the appellant that the writ petition filed by a teacher Mr. Vishwanath, S.K., in W.P.No.36001/2013, which was slated for Final Hearing concerning not subjecting his post to the - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35918-DB WA No. 383 of 2025 Grant-in-Aid is nothing to do with declaring the probation or granting annual increments to respondent Nos.6 to 9. Such nexus is not forthcoming from any material. Therefore, we are not inclined to accede to the contentions of the appellant. 33. The learned Single Judge has rightly considered the contentions raised by the appellant herein and has dismissed the petition. 34. Thus, we find that the appeal is bereft of any merits and as such, the same is dismissed. 35. Pending applications are also disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE tsn* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39