Back
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT - PRINCIPAL BENCH AT BENGALURU
SRI J R S VIDYA PEETA – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WP 44313/2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
WRIT PETITION NO.44313/2016 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI J R S VIDYA PEETA
SHIVAGANGA KSHETRA
KULUVANHALLI - 562111
NELAMANGALA TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
REP. BY PRESIDENT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI M P SRIKANTH, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
PRIMARY & SECONDARY EDUCATION
M S BUILDING. DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE – 560001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR PUBLIC
INSTRUCTIONS
PRIMARY & SECONDARY EDUCATION
NEW PUBLIC OFFICES
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, K R CIRCLE
BANGALORE – 560001.
3. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
PRIMARY EDUCATION
2
NEW PUBLIC OFFICES
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, K R CIRCLE
BANGALORE – 560001.
4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
INSTRUCTIONS
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
OPP : CAUVERY BHAVAN
K G ROAD, BANGALORE – 560009.
5. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER
NELAMANGALA
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
6. THE SECRETARY
KARNATAKA STATE COMMISSION FOR SC/ST
NO 14/3, 2ND FLOOR
CFC BUILDING
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BANGALORE – 560001.
7. SRI M HANUMANTHARAYA
S/O SRI MUNISHAMAIAH
GOLLA VILLAGE
PURUSHANAHALLI POST
MADURAI HOBLI
DODDABALLAPUR TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. M.C.NAGASHREE, AGA FOR R1-5, SRI C JAGADISH,
ADV. FOR R6, SRI JAGADISHGOUD PATIL, ADV. FOR R7)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 22.04.2016 PASSED BY THE R-6 COMMISSION
VIDE ANNEXURE-N AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN
COMPLAINT
NO.91/2014
PENDING
BEFORE
THE
R-6
COMMISSION.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
3
O R D E R
The petitioner, Educational Institution is before this
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 22.04.2016
passed by the 6th respondent/Commission (Annexure-N) and
to
quash
all
further
proceedings
in
the
Complaint
No.91/2014 pending before the 6th respondent/Commission.
2.
Heard
the
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 would submit that
the 7th respondent by filing a complaint as per Annexure-J
before the 6th respondent-Commission prayed for a direction
to the petitioner herein to pay 20 years’ salary and to
continue him in his service and further to stay filling up of
the
post
of
Principal
in
3
schools
run
by
the
4
petitioner/Society by general category candidates. Learned
counsel for the petitioner contends that insofar as the
petitioner’s
service
conditions
are
concerned,
the
6th
respondent is not the competitive authority and for redressal
of petitioner’s grievance with regard to salary and to fill up the
post of Principal, the petitioner has to avail remedy provided
under the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 (for short “1983
Act”). Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
the petitioner on appearing before the 6th respondent-
Commission filed objections as well as raised a preliminary
objection with regard to maintainability of the complaint with
regard to payment of salary as well as filling up of post of the
Principal
stating
that
the
complaint
would
not
be
maintainable and for redressal of grievance of 7th respondent
with regard to service conditions, he has to approach the
Competent Authority under 1983 Act. The said application is
rejected holding that the complaint is maintainable. Learned
counsel for the petitioner contends that the purpose and
object of the Commission is entirely different and the
5
Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaints
with regard to service conditions of the 7th respo
