- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1428 WP No.201042 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO.201042 OF 2024 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRIDEVI W/O KASHINATH MANKARI, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: WAS WORKING AS AYA, IN GOVERNMENT HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL (KPS), R/O: HALBURGA, TQ: BHALKI, DIST: BIDAR. …PETITIONER (BY SRI GURUBASAVA C. NAYAK, ADVOCATE FOR SRI RAMCHANDRA K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (PRIMARY EDUCATION) VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC INSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, BIDAR – 585 401. 4. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER, PUBLIC INSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, BHALKI, TQ: BHALKI, DIST: BIDAR – 585 328. Digitally signed by SHIVAKUMAR HIREMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1428 WP No.201042 of 2024 5. THE HEAD MASTER, GOVERNMENT HIGHER PRIMARY (KPS) SCHOOL, HALBURGA, TQ: BHALKI, DIST: BIDAR - 585 413. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI THEREBY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER NO.¸ÀASÉå: ¸À.».¥Áæ.±Á/ºÀ/ ¸ÉÃ.zÀÈ.¥ÀvÀæ/2023-24 DATED 29-02-2024 PASSED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT, AS AT ANNEXURE - H TO THE WRIT PETITION; ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO REINSTATE THE PETITIONER AS AYA AS IT IS AND CONTINUE HER SERVICE TILL PETITIONER ATTAINING THE AGE OF SUPERANNUATION. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is assailing the order dated 29.02.2024 issued by the Head Master – respondent No.5, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1428 WP No.201042 of 2024 relieving the services of the petitioner from Government Higher Primary School, Halburga, Taluk Bhalki, District Bidar. The order also reveals that the petitioner was working on an honorarium. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that earlier to the petitioner, her mother-in-law was working as a Government servant in the same school. After the death of mother-in-law of the petitioner, the petitioner sought appointment on compassionate ground. Learned counsel would submit that taking into consideration that the petitioner’s mother-in-law died while in service, the petitioner was allowed to work on honorarium in the aforementioned school. 4. It is his further submission that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by 4th respondent to show cause as to why the action should not be initiated against the petitioner for joining the 5th respondent based on a fake appointment order. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1428 WP No.201042 of 2024 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there was no appointment order issued by the State authorities. However, it is his submission that based on the recommendation made by Gram Sabha, the petitioner was allowed to work on honorarium. It is also submitted that the petitioner has not replied to the aforementioned show cause notice. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also refer to the circular dated 15.03.2019 issued by the Director of the Primary Education. From the said circular, it is noticed that the authorities have taken a decision to allow certain categories of employees who have completed 60 years, to work in the Government school on payment of honorarium. This circular does not come to the rescue of the petitioner for the simple reason that the petitioner was never appointed by the State. The said circular would apply only to those persons, who were appointed by the State. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1428 WP No.201042 of 2024 7. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner makes a statement at the Bar that no formal appointment order is issued by the State authorities, the petitioner cannot be said to be in employment under the State. The impugned order would also reveal that the petitioner was working on honorarium. If that is the case, there is no question of holding any enquiry to terminate the services of the petitioner. The order at Annexure-H is also not stigmatic. 8. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that there is no merit in the petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE LG List No.: 2 Sl No.: 30