- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31900-DB WA No. 1037 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI WRIT APPEAL NO. 1037 OF 2025 (S-RES) BETWEEN: THE SECRETARY, VIJAYA EDUCATION SOCIETY (REGD.), GRAM PANCHAYATH ROAD, HINAKAL DIST., MYSORE-570 017. …APPELLANT (BY SRI M.S BHAGAWAT, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI SATISH K, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI N UMESH, S/O T NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT DOOR NO. 170, RAMA VILASA ROAD, MYSORE-570 024. 2. THE CORRESPONDENT, MYSORE RURAL INDUSTRIAL TRAINING CENTRE, HINAKAL, MYSORE-570 017. 3. THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING, NO.9/1, SRI. PRASHANTH COMPLEX, P. KALINGA RAO ROAD, BANGALORE-560 027. 4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, Digitally signed by NANDINI R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31900-DB WA No. 1037 of 2025 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE WP No-26679/2011 ii) SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.08.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No-26679/2011 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WP No-26679/2011 FILED BY THE APPELLANT / PETITIONER AS PRAYER FOR IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. iii) PASS ANY OTHER ORDER AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE INCLUDING THE COST OF THIS WRIT APPEAL. 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. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 30.08.2023[impugned order], passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.26679/2011 (S-RES), whereby, the said petition was rejected. The appellant had filed the said petition impugning an order dated 28.02.2011 passed by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge and Chairman, Educational Appellate Tribunal, Mysore [Tribunal], allowing respondent No.1's appeal under Section 94 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 [the Act]. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31900-DB WA No. 1037 of 2025 2. The learned Tribunal has allowed the appeal, set aside respondent No.1's dismissal order dated 10.08.2001 and directed that respondent No.1 be reinstated to the post of Junior Training Officer with continuity of service. Additionally, the learned Tribunal also directed the appellant to extend all consequential monetary benefits. 3. Respondent No.1 was appointed on the post of the Instructor in ersthwile Society [Mysore Rural Industrial Training and Educational Society] on 23.12.1985. The said Society was admitted for Grant-in-Aid, whereby 75% of the salary component was provided by the Government as grant. Admittedly, respondent No.3 [the Director of Department of Employment and Training] approved the grant in respect of the salary payable to the respondent No.1. 4. In terms of an order dated 16.11.1998 passed by the State Government, Mysore Rural Industrial Training and Educational Society was merged with the appellant society. Subsequently, respondent No.3 issued a show cause notice dated 30.03.2001 to the appellant alleging that it had recommended respondent No.1's grant in aid by furnishing incorrect particulars. Thereafter, enquiry - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31900-DB WA No. 1037 of 2025 was conducted and on the basis of the enquiry report, respondent No.1 was dismissed from his service by way of communication dated 10.08.2001. 5. Respondent No.1 challenged the said dismissal order by filing a Writ Petition being W.P.No.31572/2001, in this Court. However, that petition was dismissed by an order dated 12.07.2006 on the ground that respondent No.1 had an alternate statutory remedy under Section 94 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983. Respondent No.1 was also granted the liberty to approach the learned tribunal to challenge his dismissal order. 6. It is material to note that at that stage, the appellant did not raise any objection that an appeal would not be maintainable before the Educational Appellate Tribunal. 7. Respondent No.1 filed an appeal before the learned Tribunal and as noted above, the learned Tribunal set aside the dismissal order, which was impugned by respondent no.1. The appellant did not raise any objection regarding maintainability of the appeal before the learned Tribunal. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31900-DB WA No. 1037 of 2025 8. The appellant, thereafter, filed a Writ Petition being W.P.No.26679/ 2011, challenging the order passed by the learned Tribunal. The said petition was dismissed by the impugned order. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned order, principally, on the ground that the learned Single Judge has not examined the question, whether the appeal before the Tribunal was maintainable. He submits that this is a question of law and, therefore, could be raised at any stage of the proceedings. 10. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 11. It is also relevant to note that there is no dispute that respondent No.1 had truly disclosed his educational qualifications for the purpose of his appointment. His credentials and qualifications were duly examined. According to respondent No.1, his qualification of possessing a National Trade Certificate in the Trade of Millwright Mechanic was compliant with the eligibility criteria. Since there was no material to establish that respondent No.1 had produced any incorrect certificate or had secured the employment on the basis of any false statement, the Tribunal held - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31900-DB WA No. 1037 of 2025 that the charge of misconduct was unsustainable. And, accordingly, set aside the dismissal order. 12. We note that the present appeal has been filed after an inordinate delay of 642 (six hundred and forty two) days. There is no credible explanation for such an inordinate delay. 13. According to the appellant, after receiving the impugned, it was placed before the appellant's Management for appropriate instructions. However, there were divergent views and it was decided to approach the Government for guidance regarding further action. Subsequently, the Government clarified that the decision whether to prefer the appeal would rest with the Management of the appellant society. This according to the appellant had caused the delay in filling the present appeal. However, the appellant has not provided any dates or specific timelines as to when the appellant's Management had discussed the matter; when was the decision taken to approach the Government; when did the Government advise the appellant to take a decision independently; and when did the appellant take a decision to file the appeal. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31900-DB WA No. 1037 of 2025 14. It is also stated that during the pendency of the Execution Petition, the documents furnished by the State authorities had revealed that one of the witnesses RW7, [who was then the Deputy Director] had deposed falsely and contrary to the documentary evidence, before the learned Tribunal. This had prompted re- evaluation of the legal position. However, no specific timelines have been indicated in this regard as well. 15. In view of the above, we are not persuaded to accept that the appellant has explained sufficient cause that had prevented him from filing the present appeal within time. Therefore, IA No.1/2025 seeking condonation of delay of 642 days in filing the appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed as barred by limitation. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE tsn* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 66