The court affirmed that prior representations by the appellants regarding the respondent's employment status barred them from contesting her salary claim, invoking estoppel principles.

This intra-court appeal by the management and the institution run by it seeks to call in question a learned Single Judge’s order dated 14.11.2016 whereby, their W.P.Nos.54161-54162/2016 (S-Res) have been dismissed. In those petitions, the appellants had challenged the Order dated 8.11.2005 made by the Principal Secretary to the Government, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction vested u/s 131 of the Karnataka Education Act , 1983. The said revision of the respondent-employee having been allowed, a direction has been issued to “pay the Salaries to the petitioner on Par with the salaries paid to the Government Teachers, as per Rule 5 of the Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Rules, 1978.”

2. After service of notice, the respondent- employee having entered appearance through her counsel opposes the appeal making submission in justification of the impugned order and the reasons on which it has been constructed. He invokes the doctrine of estoppel and the principle of promissory estoppel to justify the revisional order of the government. He also draws attention of the court to the unconscionable contention taken up by the appellants in the very writ petition itself.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Appeal Papers, this court declines indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:

(a) The vehement submission of learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the respondent-employee was only a part timer throughout and therefore, the Secretary to the Government could not have directed payment of salary to her on par with other full timers, is bit difficult to countenance. Initially, the respondent- employee was a part timer, is not in dispute. However, at a later point of time, her services have been utilized by the institution as a full timer, which finding of fact has been recorded by the statutory Revisional Authority who has the advantage of accumulated expertise in matters of the kind. Learned Single Judge after examining all aspects of the matter cottoned with this finding and rejected a contention to the contrary. Therefore, in an intra-court appeal of the kind, the evidence on the finding cannot be re-appreciated.

(b) We are also not sure about the very maintainability of the appeal in view of a Seven Judge Bench decision of this Court in TAMMANNA vs. RENUKA 2009 SCC OnLine Kar 123. What was challenged in the writ petition was the revisional order of the statutory authority made in admitted jurisdiction. A challenge in writ petition to the orders of the kind would fit into Article 227 of the Constitution notwithstanding the ornamental employment of Article 226 also. Ordinarily, what has been done u/a 227 that vests a limited supervisory jurisdiction, is not challengeable in an intra-court appeal, subject to all just exceptions into which argued case of the appellants does not fall.

(c) The appellants have specifically admitted in their pleadings and the record that they had in so many words represented to the Bar Council of India and to the jurisdictional University to which their institutions are affiliated that the respondent-employee has been discharging her duties as a full timer. That being the position, a contra contention cannot be countenanced. The case of the respondent-employee is also supported by the doctrine of estoppel in pais since a particular stand favourable to her is taken by the very management before the statutory authorities and thereby, they have derived some advantage too at the hands of said authorities. It is not the case of appellants even to this day that they have set-right the records by telling the BCI and the jurisdictional University that the respondent-employee is only a part timer. In other words, their stand that she is a full timer has been maintained before these authorities all through.

(d) The contention of the appellants that the respondent-employee was only a part timer and therefore, she cannot claim