2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 34399
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON9BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
WRIT PETITION NO.29744/2016 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
ANJANANAGARA SRI VINAYAKA
EDUCATION SOCIETY
SRI. VINAYAKA HIGH SCHOOL,
ANJANANAGARA, MAGADI MAIN ROAD,
VISHWANEEDAM POST,
BANGALORE-560 091,
REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT,
SRI. N.G. GIRIYAPPA.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI M.P.SRIKANTH, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT,
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION,
M.S. BUILDING,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR PUBLIC
INSTRUCTIONS
PRIMARY & SECONDARY EDUCATION,
NEW PUBLIC OFFICES,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, K.R. CIRCLE,
BANGALORE-560 001.``
2
3. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
SECONDARY EDUCATION,
NEW PUBLIC OFFICES,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, K.R. CIRCLE,
BANGALORE-560 001.
4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
INSTRUCTIONS
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT,
RAMANAGARA-571511.
5. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER
RAMANAGARA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA-571511.
6. KARNATAKA STATE COMMISSION
FOR SCHEDULE CASTE/SCHEDULE TRIBES,
NO.14/3, 2ND FLOOR, CRC BUILDING,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001.
7. SRI. VIJAY KUMAR R
S/O. SRI. RANGAIAH @ SETTY,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
THADIKAVAGILU, JALAMANGALA POST,
KUTAGAL HOBLI,
RAMANAGARA TALUK-571 511.
&RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.V.RAMESH JOIS, AGA FOR R1-R5
SRI C JAGADISH, ADV. FOR R6
SMT. VANISHREE RADHAKRISHNA, ADV. FOR R7)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
NOTICE DATED 14.11.2014 AT ANNEX-N AND ALL FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS IN COMPLAINT NO.130/2012 PENDING BEFORE
R-6 COMMISSION AT ANNEX-T INSTITUTED BY THE COMPLAINT
OF R-7 AT ANNEX-Q.
3
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 8B9 GROUP THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
The petitioner-Education Society is before this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to
quash
the
communication
bearing
No.PÀgÁ/CeÁ/C§Ä/DAiÉÆÃUÀ/¸ÉêÉ/¹Dgï-105/2012-13 dated 14.11.2014
(Annexure-N) and all further proceedings in complaint
No.130/2012 pending before the 6th respondent-Commission
(Annexure-T) filed by the 7th respondent vide Annexure-Q.
2.
Heard learned counsel Sri.M.P.Srikanth for petitioner,
learned AGA for respondents No.1 to 5 and Sri.C.Jagadish,
learned counsel for respondent No.6. Perused the writ
petition papers.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.M.P.Srikanth
submits that 7th respondent was working in the petitioner-
Institution in pursuance of the appointment order dated
4
19.02.2009. Thereafter, he submitted his resignation which
was accepted. After acceptance of his resignation, on
08.03.2012, 7th respondent submitted a letter seeking
withdrawal of his resignation. It is stated that the same was
forwarded to 4th respondent-Deputy Director of Public
Instructions. Thereafter, 7th respondent filed a complaint
before
the
6th
respondent-Commission
in
Complaint
No.130/2012, praying to compel the 4th respondent to
continue the complainant in the post held by him with all
consequential benefits, failing which, initiate appropriate
proceedings as provided under the provisions of the
Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other
Backward Classes (Reservation of appointment, etc.) Act,
1990 and Rules made thereunder. In pursuance of the
complaint, 6th respondent took cognizance and issued notice
dated 14.11.2014 to the petitioner (Annexure-N) to appear
before the Commission on 12.12.2014. Annexure-T is the
order sheet of the proceedings before the 6th respondent-
Commission.
5
4.
Learned counsel Sri.Srikanth would submit that the 6th
respondent-Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the
complaint filed by 7th respondent and the Commission, 6th
respondent
has
no
adjudicatory
jurisdiction.
The
Commission under Section 8 of the Karnataka Commission
for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 2002 (for
short <2002 Act=) has only recommendatory jurisdiction in
terms of Sections 8 and 10 of the Act. The prayer made by 7th
respondent in his complaint would not be maintainable before
the Commission. If at all, 7th respondent is aggrieved by the
actions of the petitioner-Institution, it is open for him to avail
remedy under the provisions of Karnataka Education Act,
1983. When a special enactment provides remedy to 7th
respondent, 7th respondent could not have approached 6th
respondent/Commission with a complaint to adjudicate his
dispute with the petitioner-Institution. Learned counsel
places reliance on a decision of this Court disposed of on
31.08.2021 in W.P.No.44313/2016 (J R S VIDYA PEETA v/s
6
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS) and a decision
of co-ordinate Bench of this Court reported in 2020 SCC
OnLine Kar 4968 in the case of M.B.SIDDALINGASWAMY v/s
STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
(PRIMARY AND SECONDARY), REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS to contend that the
Commission has no adjudicatory power and no power to
entertain the dispute with regard to service matters. Thus, he
prayed for allowing the writ petition.
5.
Per contra, learned counsel Sri.C.Jagadish appearing
for respondent No.6 submits that the Commission has power
to enquire even with regard to service or employment of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and other related
matters in terms of Rule 10(5) of Karnataka State
Commission for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Rules
2012. Further, he submits that the Commission could
enquire into complaint of the 7th respondent and could make
appropriate recommendation to the State Government to take
7
action against the petitioner-Institution. Thus, he submits
that it is not open for the petitioner to contend that 6th
respondent has no jurisdiction at all to enquire into the
complaint of the 7th respondent. Thus, he