- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13297 WP No. 16893 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 16893 OF 2022 (S-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SHIVAKUMAR H., S/O HEMAGIRI AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS LAB ATTENDER, SREE JAGADGURU RENUKACHARYA COLLEGE OF SCIENCE ARTS AND COMMERCE ANANDA RAO CIRCLE, BENGALURU – 560 009 2. K. B. MANJUNATHA SWAMY, S/O BASANNA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS ATTENDER SREE JAGADGURU RENUKACHARYA COLLEGE OF SCIENCE ARTS AND COMMERCE, ANANDA RAO CIRCLE BENGALURU – 560 009 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. K. R. BHAVANI SHANKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (HIGHER EDUCATION) M S BUILDINGS, BENGALURU – 560 001 2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR COLLEGIATE EDUCATION UNNATHA SHIKSHANA SOUDHA, SHESHADRI ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001 Digitally signed by MADHURI S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13297 WP No. 16893 of 2022 3. THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, SHESHADRI ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 009 4. THE PRINCIPAL SREE JAGADGURU RENUKACHARYA COLLEGE OF SCIENCE ARTS AND COMMERCE ANANDA RAO CIRCLE, BENGALURU – 560 009 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. VISHWANATH H. M., ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED LETTER BEARING NO.KAA.SHI.E/PRAA/KA/BEM/AAM- 1/29/VE/AA/2010-11 DTD 24.03.2021 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT ANNEXURE-X, HOLDING THE SAME AS ILLEGAL, BAD IN LAW ARBITRARY ONE, DISCRIMINATORY AND VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14 AND 16 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND AGAINST TO THE JUDGEMENT OF THIS HON’BLE COURT RENDERED IN MUNIYELLAPPA AND OTHERS CASE AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, the petitioners seek the following reliefs: “i) Issue Writ of Certiorari, quashing the Impugned Letter bearing No.Kaa.Shi.E/Praa.Ka.Bem/Aam-1/28/Ve.Aa/ 2010-11 dated 24.03.2021 of the 3rd Respondent (Annexure-X), holding the same as illegal, bad in law arbitrary one, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and against to the Judgment of this Hon’ble Court rendered in - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13297 WP No. 16893 of 2022 Muniyellappa & others’ case, in the interest of justice and equity. ii) Issue Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to admit the Petitioners to grant-in-aid w.e.f. 01.04.1997 with all consequential benefits such as service benefits, monetary benefits, arrears of salary and all other benefits flowing there from, in the interest of justice and equity. iii) Pass such other Order/orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and just in the matter in the interest of justice and equity in the eye of law.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned counsel for respondent No.4 and perused the material on record. 3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue in controversy is directly and squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Sri. M. Muniyellappa and others Vs. The State of Karnataka and others – W.P.Nos.963-965/2014 dated 18.01.2017 and prays that this petition may be disposed of in terms of the said judgment. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13297 WP No. 16893 of 2022 4. Per contra, learned AGA would reiterate the contentions urged in the Statement of Objections and submits that in addition to Sri. M. Muniyellappa’s case (supra), this Court has subsequently followed the judgment in the case of Smt. Rosalia M. Vs. The State of Karnataka and others – W.P.No.2939/2021 dated 18.02.2021 and the present petition may be disposed of accordingly. 5. In the case of Sri. M. Muniyellappa and others Vs. The State of Karnataka and others – W.P.Nos.963-965/2014 dated 18.01.201, this Court has held as under: “Heard Sri V Lakshminarayana, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of Smt.Shilpa Rani for petitioner and Sri E.S.Indiresh, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for respondents. 2. Petitioners were appointed as Attenders in third respondent – college on 31.07.1990 and since then they have been working in third respondent – college. Said appointment of petitioners came to be forwarded to the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education on 07.08.1990 by the Principal of college as per Annexure-J for approval of their appointment. Subsequently, on 03.08.1991 – Annexure- K, Secretary and Commissioner of Finance has intimated the Government that there are 16 posts vacant for non-teaching staff and 12 vacancies have been approved by the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13297 WP No. 16893 of 2022 Directorate of Collegiate Education by order dated 07.07.1990 and are admitted to salary grant. It is thereafter, Principal of third respondent – college submitted the proposal for appointments on 17.10.1992 as per Annexure-L whereunder the names of petitioners-3, 4 & 5 found place in the list appended thereto. On 29.01.1999 – Annexure-M one more proposal was forwarded by the Principal of third respondent - college to the Joint Director of Collegiate Education whereunder names of the petitioners have been forwarded indicating thereunder that appointment of petitioners were prior to 01.06.1992. Reminder was also sent by the Principal of third respondent – college to the Joint Director of Collegiate Education on 04.03.2010 – Annexure- N enclosing therewith service particulars of the petitioners and also indicating thereunder that petitioners were appointed on 01.08.1990. The Principal Secretary, Education Department (Higher Education) has forwarded a communication to the Directorate of Collegiate Education on 04.02.2013 – Annexure-R to examine the claim of petitioners for being admitted to salary grant. Thereafter, petitioners have also submitted representation to the Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Education requesting for payment of salary and allowances under the grant-in-aid vide Annexure-S. 3. Records disclose that after proposal was sent by the Principal of third respondent – college on 07.08.1990, an endorsement came to be issued on 25.10.2013, after a lapse of 23 years, by second respondent rejecting the claim of petitioners by assigning the reason that Rule 8(2) of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13297 WP No. 16893 of 2022 Karnataka Educational Institution (Collegiate Education) Rules, 2003 do not provide for grant of approval to the appointments of petitioners since with effect from 01.03.2001 the functioning and unapproved posts of non-teaching staff has stood permanently unaided and vacancies in the non- teaching staff which has arisen after 01.03.2001 on account of retirement, resignation, removal, dismissal or death are also to remain permanently unaided. Hence, questioning the said endorsement, petitioners are before this Court in these writ petitions. 4. Learned Advocate appearing for petitioners have contended that petitioners came to be appointed by regular procedure of selection, they possess requisite qualification and on completion of 7 years of service they are entitled for being admitted to salary grant. It is also contended that as on the date of appointment of petitioners on 1990, grant in aid was in force and Karnataka Education Act, 1983 came into force from 01.06.1995 and in view of Section 146 of the Karnataka Education Act, Government orders and grant in aid code which was prevalent as on the date of appointment of petitioners would have statutory force and as such, Karnataka Educational Institutions (Collegiate Education) Rules, 2003 would have no application to the case of petitioners and it would apply only to the vacancies which have arisen after 01.03.2001. Hence, relying upon the judgment of co-ordinate Bench of this Court rendered in W.P.No.3734/2008 and connected matters dated 10.11.2010 – Annexure-AA, petitioners are seeking for similar relief. They pray for quashing of the impugned endorsement. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13297 WP No. 16893 of 2022 5. Per contra, learned Addl. Government Advocate, reiterating the grounds urged in the statement of objections, would contend that third respondent is an aided institution and had not obtained prior approval or prior permission to fill up the posts from the office of respondents- 1 and 2 and as such, appointment of petitioners being without prior permission, petitioners would not be entitled for being admitted to salary grant. It is also contended that in order to regulate all appointments to various posts being made in the aided and unaided degree colleges, Government Order dated 03.10.1981 came to be issued and it would clearly disclose that prior approval was required to be obtained by respective institutions before making any such appointments and such prior permission or prior approval having not been obtained by the institution in which petitioners came to be appointed, cannot be approved or admitted to grant and as such, impugned order would not call for any interference. Hence, respondents have sought for dismissal of the writ petitions. 6. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of the records, it would disclose that reason assigned by the second respondent to reject the claim of petitioners salary being admitted to grant under the impugned endorsement is on the ground that posts which fell vacant on account of retirement, resignation, removal, dismissal or death would remain permanently unaided from 01.03.2001 as indicated in the notification dated 07.08.2003 which came to be issued under Rule 8(2) of the Karnataka Educational Institution (Collegiate Education) Rules, 2003 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13297 WP No. 16893 of 2022 and as such, third respondent - management itself has to pay salary and other allowances from its own resources. 7. Impugned endorsement cannot be sustained for reasons more than one. Firstly, it can be noticed from the records that proposal was sent by third respondent - college for approval of appointment of petitioners made on 31.07.1990 by proposal dated 07.08.1990 addressed to the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education vide Annexure-J. Obviously this found favour with the Finance Department as is evident from the communication dated 03.08.1991- Annexure-K which has emanated from the office of Commissioner and Secretary, Finance Department by referring to the approval of the vacancy in third respondent – college by the Director of Collegiate Education on 07.08.1990 and calling upon it to forward the proposals of petitioners for admitting to salary grant. Secondly, the reason assigned in the impugned endorsement by second respondent for rejecting the claim of the petitioners is on the ground that vacant and unapproved posts of non-teaching staff as on 01.03.2001 would stand permanently unaided, would have no relevance or would not be applicable insofar as third respondent – institution is concerned or appointments of the petitioners are concerned for two reasons, namely, (1) appointment of the petitioners were made much prior to 2001 i.e., 31.07.1990 as per Annexures- A to F and proposals of petitioners were forwarded by third respondent – Institution to respondents-1 and 2 on 07.08.1990 – Annexure-J; and (2) said position of declaring vacant and unapproved posts to be permanently unaided - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13297 WP No. 16893 of 2022 was prospective from 01.03.2001 and as such, it would have no effect on the appointments made prior to 01.03.2001 or atleast to the appointment of petitioners which was made much prior to it. 8. Yet another aspect which cannot go unnoticed is the fact respondents have very heavily relied upon Government Order dated 03.10.1981 to contend that prior approval of Education Department had to be obtained by third respondent - institution before any appointments were made. Relevant clauses in the Government Order dated 03.10.1981 reads as under: “4. Appointments/ promotions made till 1st October 1977 but not recognized shall be governed by the following rules; (a) All appointments/ promotions made by the Private aided Colleges in accordance with the Government Order No.ED 16 UPC 66, dated 6th June 1966, as further clarified by Government Order No.ED 111 UPC 73, dated 3rd August 1977 upto the issue of orders prescribing the pattern of staff under Govt. Order No.ED 157 UPC 69, dated 13th January 1971 would be recognized irrespective of the provisions of the Rules of Recruitment and any excess of posts when compared with the staffing pattern will be counted against future vacancies. Appointments/ promotions made after 13th January 1971 and till 1st October 1977 should conform to the number of posts as per the staffing pattern and to the Rules of Recruitment applicable to posts in the Government Colleges.” - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13297 WP No. 16893 of 2022 A bare reading of above said clause of the Government Order dated 03.10.1981 would indicate that all appointments made by the private aided colleges as per Government Order dated 06.06.1986 as clarified by Government order dated 03.08.1977 and 13.01.1971 would be recognized irrespective of the provisions of the Rules of recruitment and any excess of posts when compared with the staffing pattern would be counted against future vacancies. It would also disclose that appointments made after 13.01.1971 till 01.10.1977 should conform to the number of posts as per the staffing pattern and Rules of recruitment applicable to posts in Government colleges. Thus, said clause would not disclose that appointments made subsequently thereto and before Government Order dated 01.03.2001 came into force would also mandate that prior approval has to be obtained by the institution/management from respondent – authorities. On these grounds also, impugned endorsement cannot be sustained. 9. Records would disclose that undisputedly, the posts to which petitioners are appointed were approved and had remained vacant as on the date of their respective appointments in the year 1990. Petitioners herein were all appointed prior to 01.03.2001 against the existing vacancies which were aided posts as on the date of their respective appointments. In fact, third respondent – college had sought approval of such appointments much prior to 2003 Rules had come into force. As such, Rule 8(2) which has been pressed into service by respondents also cannot be applied to the case of petitioners. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13297 WP No. 16893 of 2022 10. For the reasons aforestated, this Court is of the considered view that impugned endorsement dated 25.10.2013 – Annexure-T cannot be sustained. However, the claims of petitioners would be required to be re-examined by second respondent in the light of observations made herein above and also taking into consideration the non- applicability of Rule 8(2) of the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Collegiate Education) Rules, 2003 insofar as petitioners appointments are concerned, inasmuch as, petitioners appointments were made much prior to said Rule coming into force. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) Writ petitions are hereby allowed. (ii) Endorsement dated 25.10.2013 – Annexure-T issued by respondent No.2 is hereby quashed. (iii) Second respondent is hereby directed to re- examine the claim or proposal dated 07.08.1990 – Annexure-J in the light of observations made herein above expeditiously and at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In the event of said authority arriving at a conclusion that petitioners are entitled for being admitted to salary grant, necessary orders in that regard shall be passed expeditiously within three (3) months from the date of arriving at a conclusion that petitioners would be entitled for being admitted to salary grant. Ordered accordingly.” - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13297 WP No. 16893 of 2022 6. In their Statement of Objections, at para No.16, respondents themselves as under: “16. It is submitted that it has been pointed out by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a number of cases that representations would not be adequate explanation to take care of delay. This was first stated in K.V. Rajalakshmaiah Setty v. State of Mysore 1967 2 SCR 70. This was reiterated in Rabindranath Bose case by stating that there is limit to the time which can be considered reasonable for making representations and if the Government had turned down one representation the making of another representation on similar lines will not explain the delay. In State of Orissa v. Pyarimohan Samantaray 1977 3 SCC 396 making of repeated representations was not regarded as satisfactory explanation of the delay. In that case the petition had been dismissed for delay alone. (See State of Orissa v. Arun Kumar Patnaik AIR 1976 SC 1639 also) Admittedly, the petitioners are seeking the benefits which are granted to Sri Muniyellappa and others who had approached this Hon’ble Court in WP No.963-965/2014 and obtained orders on 18.01.2017. The very same relief (i.e., benefits granted to Muniyellappa and others) was sought by one Smt. Rosalia M., Office Assistant, Jyoti Nivas College, Bangalore in WP No.2939/2021 which was disposed of on 18.02.2021, copy of which is produced as Annexure-R1, wherein directions were issued to official respondents to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, thus the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13297 WP No. 16893 of 2022 same orders also be passed in favour of these Petitioners also.” 7. In the case of Smt. Rosalia M. Vs. The State of Karnataka and others – W.P.No.2939/2021 dated 18.02.2021, this Court has held as under: “The petitioner in this writ petition has sought for a direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondents – State for approval of her appointment as is done in the case of others who are the petitioners in writ petition Nos.963-965/2014. 2. Heard Sri V. Lakshminarayana, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Smt. M.C.Nagashree, learned counsel for the first to third respondents and perused the material on record. 3. Both the learned counsel representing their parties would submit that the issue in the writ petition stands covered by a order of a learned Co-ordinate Bench rendered on 18.01.2017, wherein, this Court has held as follows: “8. Yet another aspect which cannot go unnoticed is the fact respondents have very heavily relied upon Government Order dated 03.10.1981 to contend that prior approval of Education Department had to be obtained by third respondent - institution before any appointments were made. Relevant clauses in the Government Order dated 03.10.1981 reads as under: - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13297 WP No. 16893 of 2022 “4. Appointments/ promotions made till 1st October 1977 but not recognized shall be governed by the following rules; (a) All appointments/ promotions made by the Private aided Colleges in accordance with the Government Order No.ED 16 UPC 66, dated 6th June 1966, as further clarified by Government Order No.ED 111 UPC 73, dated 3rd August 1977 upto the issue of orders prescribing the pattern of staff under Govt. Order No.ED 157 UPC 69, dated 13th January 1971 would be recognized irrespective of the provisions of the Rules of Recruitment and any excess of posts when compared with the staffing pattern will be counted against future vacancies. Appointments/ promotions made after 13th January 1971 and till 1st October 1977 should conform to the number of posts as per the staffing pattern and to the Rules of Recruitment applicable to posts in the Government Colleges.” A bare reading of above said clause of the Government Order dated 03.10.1981 would indicate that all appointments made by the private aided colleges as per Government Order dated 06.06.1986 as clarified by Government order dated 03.08.1977 and 13.01.1971 would be recognized irrespective of the provisions of the Rules of recruitment and any excess of posts when compared with the staffing pattern would be counted against future vacancies. It would also disclose that appointments made after 13.01.1971 till 01.10.1977 should conform to the number of posts as per the staffing pattern and Rules of recruitment applicable to posts in Government colleges. Thus, said clause would not disclose that appointments made subsequently thereto and before Government Order dated 01.03.2001 came into force would also mandate that prior approval has to be obtained by the institution/management from respondent – authorities. On these grounds also, impugned endorsement cannot be sustained. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13297 WP No. 16893 of 2022 9. Records would disclose that undisputedly, the posts to which petitioners are appointed were approved and had remained vacant as on the date of their respective appointments in the year 1990. Petitioners herein were all appointed prior to 01.03.2001 against the existing vacancies which were aided posts as on the date of their respective appointments. In fact, third respondent – college had sought approval of such appointments much prior to 2003 Rules had come into force. As such, Rule 8(2) which has been pressed into service by respondents also cannot be applied to the case of petitioners. 10. For the reasons aforestated, this Court is of the considered view that impugned endorsement dated 25.10.2013 – Annexure-T cannot be sustained. However, the claims of petitioners would be required to be reexamined by second respondent in the light of observations made herein above and also taking into consideration the non-applicability of Rule 8(2) of the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Collegiate Education) Rules, 2003 insofar as petitioners appointments are concerned, inasmuch as, petitioners appointments were made much prior to said Rule coming into force. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) Writ petitions are hereby allowed. (ii) Endorsement dated 25.10.2013 – Annexure-T issued by respondent No.2 is hereby quashed. (iii) Second respondent is hereby directed to re-examine the claim or proposal dated 07.08.1990 – Annexure-J in the light of observations made herein above expeditiously and at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In the - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13297 WP No. 16893 of 2022 event of said authority arriving at a conclusion that petitioners are entitled for being admitted to salary grant, necessary orders in that regard shall be passed expeditiously within three (3) months from the date of arriving at a conclusion that petitioners would be entitled for being admitted to salary grant. Ordered accordingly.” The order of the learned Co-ordinate Bench was carried in appeal before the learned Division Bench, by the State Government only to be dismissed by its judgment dated 25.10.2017 in writ appeal No.5614/2017 and connected matters. In terms of the order passed by the learned Coordinate Bench, the State passed an Government Order dated 11.02.2019. Therefore, the State Government cannot now contend that the petitioner is not entitled to the similar treatment as is done with the petitioners in writ petition Nos.963-965/2014. 4. In terms of the afore-extracted order of the learned Co- ordinate Bench, the petitioner is at liberty to submit his representation seeking consideration of his case on par with those petitioners in the aforestated writ petitions, which have attained finality in writ appeal Nos.5614/2017 and connected matter disposed on 25.10.2017, by the learned Division Bench, the following: ORDER a. The writ petition is allowed. b. The official respondents are directed to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders in - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13297 WP No. 16893 of 2022 accordance with law, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.” 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of the petition in term of the decisions of this Court in the cases of Sri. M. Muniyellappa and Smt. Rosalia (supra). 9. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned letter dated 24.03.2021 issued by respondent No.3 vide Annexure-X is hereby quashed, insofar as the petitioners are concerned. (iii) The concerned respondents are directed to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE BMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 61