Back
2013 Supreme(Kar) 1390
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
D.B. Bhosale and K.N. Keshavanarayana, JJ.
Dakshin Bharath Hindi Prachar Sabha (Karnataka) - Appellants
Vs.
A.S. Gadag - Respondent
W.A. No. 30934/2012 (S-RES)
Decided On : 12.03.2013
For The Appellant :F.V. Patil, Advocate
For The Respondent:R.M. Kulkarni, Advocate
Headnote:KARNATAKA EDUCATION ACT, 1983 - Sections 2, 1(3), (27), 2(14): [Dilip B. Bhosale & K.N. Keshavanarayana, JJ] Jurisdiction of Educational Tribunal - Termination of Lecturer - Appeal before Tribunal - Plea that appellant being recognized by Indian Medical Council is excluded from purview of Act - Held, the appellant - educational institution is amenable to the provisions of K.E. Act and that appeal filed by the respondent before the Karnataka Educational Appellate Tribunal is maintainable. Clause (b) of sub-section (27) of Section 2 of K.E. Act clearly states that private educational institution does not include an educational institution "established and administered by any University established by law". The appellant - educational institution is neither established nor administered by the University. It is only affiliated to the University. Similarly it is not under direct management of the University. The appellant, therefore, is a private educational institution imparting education referred to in Section 3, not established and administered by any University or I.M.C. As a matter of fact it is not in dispute that the University does not have any control over the management of the appellant - Institution nor is it established or administered or maintained by the University and that it is only affiliated to the University. In view of the provisions contained in sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act, by no stretch of imagination it could be said that the Act would not apply to the educational institutions, like the petitioner - institution. There are several other provisions including Sections 1(3), 2(16), 2(20) in the K.E. Act, which indicate that it would cover/apply to all educational institutions, such as the petitioner - institution. The I.M.C. Act providing a remedy for an employee of the private educational institutions such as the appellant against whom the action of termination is taken by the Management, in our opinion, the provisions of K.E. Act are applicable. The Tribunal has rightly observed in the order to hold that it has a jurisdiction to entertain the appeal filed by the appellant challenging his termination.
KARNATAKA EDUCATION ACT, 1983 - Section 3: [Dilip B. Bhosale & K.N. Keshavanarayana, JJ] "Private Educational Institution" - The definition of "private education institution" means any educational institution imparting education referred to in Section 3, "established" and "administered" or "maintained" by any person or body of persons, but shall not include an educational institution - "established" and "administered" by any University established by law. The dictionary meaning of the word "administer" is "to attend to the running of affairs" or to "manage", and of the word "establish" is "to set-up on a system on permanent basis".
D.B. Bhosale, J.
1. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 23.08.2012 passed by learned Single Judge in a writ petition filed by the appellant, questioning maintainability of the proceedings, before the Karnataka Educational Appellate Tribunal, instituted by the respondent challenging his termination as a Lecturer in the college run by them.
1.1. The contention that was urged on behalf of the appellant - educational institution before the learned Single Judge was that the appellant is an institution recognised by the Indian Medical Council (I.M.C.) and amenable to the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, (for short "I.M.C. Act"), and therefore, is excluded from the purview of Karnataka Education Act, 1983 (for short "K.E. Act"). The learned Judge disposed of the writ petition by recording the following reasons-
"Since, admittedly, the proceedings are pending before the Tribunal, the matter may be allowed to run its course and notwithstanding the finding of the Tribunal, that even though the institution may be amenable to the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, since the Act does not provide for discipline and control of employees of the institution, it is still open for an aggrieved employee to invoke the provisions of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, as the petitioner institution is an Educational Institution, is a question that shall be left open for consideration by this Court if and when the proceedings before the Tribunal attain finality and are subjected to challenge before this Court subsequently. With that observation, the petition stands disposed of."
2. Mr. F.V. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the appellant assailed the order passed by the learned Single Judge on two grounds. Firstly, after inviting our attention to Section 2(27) and Section 2(14) of K.E. Act, he submitted that it is only schools and junior colleges are covered by the K.E. Act, and therefore, the appeal filed by respondent under Section 94 of the K.E. Act before the Karnataka Educational Appellate Tribunal is not maintainable. In other words, he submitted, the K.E. Act would not apply to the educational institutions which run colleges imparting professional education such as medical education, technical education etc. Secondly, he submitted that under clause (iv) of sub-section (3) of Section 1 the colleges and institutions which are dealt within the I.M.C. Act are excluded from the purview of K.E. Act. He submitted that admittedly the appellant - college is recognised by Indian Medical Council and is affiliated to Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act, 1994 (for short "the University"), and hence the proceedings under the provisions of the K.E. Act against them are not maintainable.
3. The appellant is a Society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. They have a medical college and hospital in homeopathy at Dharwad, established in 1996-97. The college is recognised by the Central Council of Homeopathy. It is also recognised under the I.M.C. Act. The respondent was working as a Professor in the college run by the appellant - institution. His services were terminated with effect from 28.04.2011. The respondent questioned his termination by filing an appeal under Section94 of the K.E. Act before the Karnataka Educational Appellate Tribunal, constituted under Section 96 of the said Act. Before the Tribunal, the appellant raised a preliminary objection as to its jurisdiction to hear and decide an appeal under Section 94 of the K.E. Act against the institution recognised and/or dealt within the I.M.C. Act. The Tribunal after considering the relevant provisions of K.E. Act and I.M.C. Act and so also the judgment of this Court in B.N. VADIRAJA vs. MUMTAZ AHMED, ILR 2000 KAR 3425 held that the appeal filed by the respondent under Section 94 of the K.E. Act challenging his termination is maintainable. Against the order of Tribunal the appellant - institution filed the writ pet
