Legislation denying equal increments to private aided educational staff for Kannada exams is unconstitutional as it violates Article 14, undermining principles of equality and judicial authority.

ORDER :

1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking the following prayer:

A. Struck down the impugned legislation viz., The Karnataka Education (Amendment) Act 2015 (Karnataka Act No.4/2015) published in Karnataka Gazette dated 09.01.2015 passed by the 1^st respondent vide Annexure-F as Ultra Virus as it is opposed to the Article 14 of the Constitution of India and it encroaches upon the judicial powers of the Courts and consequently Direct the Respondents to Grant the benefit of One Additional increment to the petitioners for having passed Kannada Language Examination or Equivalent to it by allowing the writ petition in the interest of justice and equity.

B. Issue a writ of mandamus of any other appropriate writ, Order or Direction, directing the respondents to extend the benefit of the Karnataka Civil Services (Service and Kannada Language Examination) Rules, 1974 read with the Circular dated 03.11.2000 and 12.09.2001 (Produced at Annexure-A and B) to the petitioners i.e., grant of one additional increment with all consequential benefits to the petitioners.

C. Pass any other appropriate Order, Writ or directions as this Hon’ble court may deem fit under the facts and circumstances of the case in the ends of justice and equity.

2. Heard the learned counsel Sri. P.G. Chikkanaragund, appearing for the petitioners and the learned AGA Smt. Girija S. Hiremath for the respondents.

3. The identical prayers that were sought before this Court has been answered by the Co-ordinate Bench in W.P. No.105439/2014 & W.P. Nos.108382-417/2014 in terms of its order dated 24.07.2020. The order reads as follows:

14. On perusal of the material on record, this issue has been dealt by this Court in several writ petitions. The judgments rendered by this Court needs to be considered in two parts. The judgments which are rendered by this Court be fore Act No.4 of 2015 was enacted and in second part, I have to examine the judgments rendered by this Court subsequent to enactment of Act No.4 of 2015 which is challenged be fore this Court. It would be useful for the Court to examine the ratio laid down by this Court in Sumithra P. and Others Vs. State of Karnataka rendered in W.P. No. 13715/2006 c/w W.P. Nos. 17236/ 2008 & 10111 to 10681 of 2019, which has exhaustively dealt with rival contentions raised in the said writ petitions.

15. The question that was raised in the said writ petitions was, as to whether the benefit of additional increment can be extended to the teaching and non- teaching sta ff of private aided educational institutions, who had joined services be fore 02.09.1987. This Court by relying on the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2002) 6 SCC 72 (State of Haryana and Another Vs. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association), AIR 1990 SC 968 (Haryana State Adhyapak Sangh and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others), (1996) 5 SCC 273 (State of Haryana and Others Vs. Rajpal Sharma and Others), (1995) 4 SCC 507 (State of H.P Vs. H.P. State Recognised and Aided Schools Managing Committees and Others) and several other judgments, was of the view that imparting primary and secondary education to students is the bounden duty of State administration, the private institutions cater to the needs of educational opportunities. There fore, there is a corresponding responsibility on the state Government to ensure that in aided institutions, the teachers and other sta ff whose appointments have been approved by the State Government are entitled for the same emoluments as provided to their counterparts in the Government schools. The decision of the State Government not to extend the increment in question to the teachers and other employees of private aided educational institutions is patently irrational and unjust, particularly, when their counter parts in government school are made available with the said benefit.

16. In the light of the above said discussion, this Court in Sumithra’s case (supra) proceeded to allow the writ petitions by issui