Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 25940
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO.3511 OF 2026 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI.DASHARATH C P, AGE 52 YEARS, OCC ASSISTANT TEACHER, R BH /O O G N A G V O A C LU O V L A O D N E Y Y , A NAPUR NANJANGUD, MYSURU- 571 301.
2. SRI. JAYANNA H M AGE 59 YEARS, R O / C O C : A R A I S S S K I E ST R A E N , P T T H E O A S C A H H E A R L , L I, MADALU HASSAN-573 117.
3. SMT. BHAGYAMMA H W/O K C VASUDEVA MURTHY AGE 50 YEARS, Dig itally signed R O / C O C D A O S D S D IS A T K A A N V T A L T A E N A D C E H , E K R U , DLAPURA by CHANDANA TALUK: NANJANGUDA, B M MYSURU- 571 118.Location: H igh C Ka o r u n r a t t o a f ka
4. S A R G I E . K 5 .S 2 . Y M E A A H R A S D , E VAPPA, OCC ASSISTANT TEACHER, R/O DODDAKAVALANDE HUBLI, NANJANAGUDA TALUKA MYSURU- 571 312.
5. SRI. MAHADEVA NAIKA D, AGE 52 YEARS, OCC ASSISTANT TEACHER, R/O NAYAKARA BEEDI, NANJANAGUDU TALUKA MYSURU-571 118.
6. SMT. PADMA N P AGE 48 YEARS, OCC ASSISTANT TEACHER, R/O THALLOKUKALAVANDE, HANUMANAPURA, MYSURU-571 119.
7. SRI. SIDDARAJU M, AGE 58 YEARS, OCC * SDA (Second Division Assistant)R/O NO. 504, AMBEDKAR BIDI, NANJANGUD TALUKA BADANAVALU, MYSURU- 571 312.
…PETITIONERS (BY SMT. VAIBHAVI INAMDAR FOR SRI. VEERESH SHIVALINGAPPA SAJJAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION AND LITERACY M.S BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, IN KARNATAKA, NEW PUBLIC OFFICES, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE DIRECTOR (PRIMARY EDUCATION), DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, COMMISSIONER OFFICE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.
4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, (ADMINISTRATIVE) DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION AND LITERACY, MYSURU DISTRICT, DIVISION JDA OFFICE COMPOUND RAMASWAMY CIRCLE, MYSURU- 570 005.*Corrected vide Court order dated: 08.04.2026.
5. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER, *NANJANGUD TALUK MYSURU – 570 004.
6. THE PRINCIPAL DSS HIGH SCHOOL, NAGARLE, NANJANGUDA TALUKA MYSURU- 571 301.
7. THE CHAIRMAN, DEVARASANAHALLI SHRI SIDDAYYASHARADAMMA SMARAK VIDYA SANSTHE, NO. 4201, AISHWARYA NILAYA, 1ST CROSS, KHB COLONY, NANJANGUDU, MYSURU- 571 301.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-5;SRI. KISHOR SUTAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-6 & R-7)
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
SV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10
THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS SEEKING CONSIDERATION OF THE REPRESENTATIONS VIZ ANNEXURE- C TO C2 DATED 22-01-2024, 24-01-2024 AND 21-08-2024 RESPECTIVELY, FOR RELEASE OF THE SALARIES TO THE PETITIONERS AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS POSSIBLE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:
“i) Issue writ of mandamus seeking consideration of the representations viz., Annexures – C to C2 dated 22.01.2024, 24.01.2024 & 21.08.2024 respectively, for * Corrected vide Court order dated: 08.04.2026. release of the salaries to the petitioners as expeditiously as possible in the interest of justice and equity.
ii) Issue incidental or any other relief/s as this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in aid of the main relief sought for, in the interest of justice and equity.”
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 and 7 and perused the material on record.
In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioners would invite my attention to the material on record in order to point out that the petitioners have been working in the respondent Nos.6 and 7 – Schools from 2014, which is an aided institution covered under the grant-in-aid code provided by the government and the petitioners were being given salary upto 2023. Despite petitioners continuing to work in the respondent – school, the respondents stopped paying their salaries and have not considered the repeated representations submitted by the petitioners and as such, the petitioners are before this Court by way of the present petition.
Learned counsel would also point out that under identical circumstances in the case of Shri. Anil and others Vs. The State of Karnataka and others – W.P.No.104367/2025 dated 20.11.2025, this Court has come to the conclusion that by virtue of Article 23 of the Constitution of India and the judgments referred to in the said order, the respondents would be liable and duty bound to pay the salary in favour of the petitioners and a positive direction / mandamus in this regard is to be issued to the concerned respondent Nos.1 to 4.
Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 and7 submits that an application for renewal of recognition was submitted by respondent Nos.6 and 7 in the year 2024, which has not been considered by the concerned respondent Nos.1 to 5 even till today and in the event the State Government provides funds to respondent Nos.6 and 7 they would disburse the salary in favour of the petitioners.
However, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 to 5 submits that respondent Nos.6 and 7 are not entitled for renewal of recognition and as such, respondent Nos.1 to 5 are not liable to provide funds to respondent Nos.6 and 7 for the purpose of disbursement of salary to the petitioners. He further submits that the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this in the Anil’s case supra, is not applicable to the facts of the instant case.
I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record.
A perusal of the material on record will indicate that it is an undisputed fact that the petitioners are working in the respondent Nos.6 and 7 – Schools from 2014 onwards and were receiving salaries upto 2023 when the respondent Nos.6 and 7 suddenly stopped making payment on the ground that the State Government – respondent Nos.1 to 5 were not providing funds in favour of respondent Nos.6 and 7. In this context, this Court in Anil and others case supra held as under:
“1. The petitioners are before t
