- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44078 WP No. 28319 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 28319 OF 2016 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. NAGAMMA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS C/O LINGARAJU, TEACHER, NO.1/14, V.S.L. QUARTERS, MESS ROAD, JANNAPURA, BHADRAVATI TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 301. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. V. LAKSHMI NARAYANA, SR. COUNSEL FOR SMT. SHILPA RANI & SRI. KIRAN KUMAR M., ADVOCATES) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, (PRIMARY & SECONDARY EDUCATION), M.S. BUILDINGS, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, K.R. CIRCLE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44078 WP No. 28319 of 2016 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, SHIMOGA-577 201. 4. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYATH, SHIMOGA DISTRICT, SHIMOGA-577 201. 5. BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER PUBLIC EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, BHADRAVATI, BHADRAVATI TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 301. 6. SHRE SEVALAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, KARAKUCCHI, TARIKERE TALUK, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY PIN: 577 114. 7. SHREE VEERABHADRESHWARA HIGH SCHOOL REPRESENTED BY ITS HEAD MASTER, GONIBEEDU, BHADRAVATI TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. PIN: 577 115, REPRESENTED BY ITS HEAD MASTER. 8. MRS. SUMA K.S D/O SAKRANAIK, MAJOR, R/O KARAKUCHCHI, TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT. PIN: 577 114. 9. SRI. SAKRANAYAK S/O THOLACHANAIKA, MAJOR, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44078 WP No. 28319 of 2016 R/O KARAKUCHCHI, TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT. PIN: 577 114. 10. THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY & DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, (SECONDARY EDUCATION), O/O COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R SHARATH CHANDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R4 SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3, R5 & R10 SRI. R. PADMANABHA, ADVOCATE FOR R8 SRI. HARISH KUMAR M.S., ADVOCATE FOR R6 (VC) R7 & R9 ARE SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD.23.3.2016 PASSED BY THE R-10 IN APPEAL NO.14/2014 FILED BY THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEX-W BY HOLDING THAT THE ENTIRE SELECTION PROCESS ADOPTED IN CASE OF R-8 -MRS. SUMA IS HIT BY THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14 AND 16 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. DIRECT THE R-1 TO 5 TO ACCORD SERVICE WEIGHTAGE TO THE PETITIONER HEREIN FOR COMPLETION OF EACH YEAR OF SERVICE AND GRANT HER THE BENEFIT OF SELECTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. DIRECT THE R-1 TO 5 TO PAY SALARY TO THE PETITIONER ATTACHED TO THE POST OF SOCIAL SCIENCE ASSISTANT TEACHER IN TERMS OF ARTICLE 39-D OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44078 WP No. 28319 of 2016 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking for the following prayer: i. Issue a writ of certiorari, quashing the order dated 23.03.2016 passed by respondent No.10 in Appeal No.14/2014 filed by the petitioner herein vide Annexure-W by holding that the entire selection process adopted in case of respondent No.8- Mrs. Suma is hit by the principles of natural justice and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India; ii. Issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein to accord service weightage to the petitioner herein for completion of each year of service and grant her the benefit of selection in accordance with law; iii. Further, issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent Nos.1 to 5 to pay salary to the petitioner attached to the post of Social Science Assistant Teacher in terms of Article 39-D of the Constitution of India; iv. Issue any other writ, order or direction and such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44078 WP No. 28319 of 2016 deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. 2. Heard Sri. Lakshmi Narayana, learned Senior Counsel for Smt. Shilpa Rani and Sri. Kiran Kumar M., learned counsel the petitioner, Sri. Harish Kumar M.S., for respondent No.6, Sri. R. Sharath Chandra for respondent No.4 and Smt. B.P. Radha, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3, 5 and 10. 3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was selected for the post of Social Science Assistant Teacher on a regular basis in respondent No.7-school in 2009. Respondent No.6 issued a notification inviting applications from the eligible candidates for recruitment to the post of social science teacher. Respondent No.8, who happens to be the daughter of the President of respondent No.7, was selected and said selection order was sent for the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44078 WP No. 28319 of 2016 approval to the concerned authorities. He submits that the concerned authorities did not approve the appointment of the petitioner. The petitioner aggrieved by the order of appointment of respondent No.8 filed an appeal before the appellate authority. He submits that the appellate authority dismissed the appeal without considering that the petitioner is serving in respondent No.7 institution for more than 26 years. He submits that liberty be reserved to the petitioner to make a representation to respondent No.7 for regularisation and payment of arrears of salary and further direction be issued to respondent No.7 to forward the representation of the petitioner to the State Government for approval. Accordingly, prays to dispose of the appeal. 4. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3, 5 and 10 submits that though respondent No.8 was selected for the post of social science teacher, the management - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44078 WP No. 28319 of 2016 recommended for approval of her appointment, but the concerned authority rejected the recommendation of respondent No.7 on the ground that respondent No.8 is not attending the duty. She submits that the said order passed by respondent No.1 has attained a finality. She submits that respondent No.7 for the approval of the post of social science teacher for the petitioner, has not sent any recommendation. She submits that if such a recommendation is sent by respondent No.7, the State will consider the recommendation in accordance with law. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.7 submits that respondent No.7 has not recommended for approval of the petitioner's post for the social science teacher. He also denied that the petitioner was working in respondent No.7 for past 26 years. It is a disputed question of fact. Hence, he submits that if representation is made by the petitioner, respondent No.7 will forward the same to the Government for - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44078 WP No. 28319 of 2016 approval. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dispose of the writ petition. 6. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 7. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is working as a social Science teacher since from 2009. Meanwhile, respondent No.6 institution invited the applications for the post of social science teacher. The petitioner, respondent No.8 and another have applied for the said post. Respondent No.7 appointed respondent No.8 as a social science teacher, who happens to be the daughter of the President of respondent No.7. Respondent No.7 recommended for the approval of appointment of respondent No.8 as a teacher. The District Verification Committee rejected the recommendation of respondent No.7 on the ground that respondent No. 8, who happens to be the daughter of president of respondent No.7. Again respondent No.7 has recommended for approval of - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44078 WP No. 28319 of 2016 respondent No. 8's post as a teacher of social science. The State Government has rejected the proposed recommendation of respondent No.8 on the ground that respondent No.8 has not attended the school for more than 6 years. The order of rejection has attained a finality. 8. The petitioner aggrieved by the selection of respondent No.8, preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority has rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner without considering that the recommendation of respondent No.7 was rejected by Government. In view of the rejection by the Government regarding the approval of appointment of respondent No. 8 for the post of social science teacher, nothing survives for consideration in this writ petition. The writ petition has become redundant. 9. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that as the petitioner is working in respondent No.7 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44078 WP No. 28319 of 2016 institution for more than 26 years, liberty be reserved to the petitioner to submit a representation to respondent No.7 for regularisation, and for payment of arrears of salary. 10. Respondent No.7 disputed that the petitioner is working for 26 years, and the learned counsel for the respondent No.7 submits that in case if the petitioner submits a representation to the respondent, the respondent will forward the same to the State Government. District verification has recommended the proposal of respondent No.8, and government has declined to accept the said proposal on the ground that she remained absent unauthorisedly for 6 years. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for respondent No.7, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER i. The writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44078 WP No. 28319 of 2016 ii. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to submit a representation to respondent No. 7 within 15 days from the receipt of this order. iii. If such a representation is made, respondent No.7 is directed to forward the same to the State Government within 15 days from the date of receipt of such representation. Thereafter, the State Government is directed to consider the representation and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. In view of the disposal of the main petition, pending IAs, if any, do not survive for consideration, and they are disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SKS CT:KHV