1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

ON THE 6^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

WRIT PETITION NO.13718 OF 2013(S-KSAT)

BETWEEN:

SRI MALKAJAPPA D KALAL

SON OF DURGAPPA KALAL

AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

HINDI TEACHER

GOVERNMENT PRE-UNIVERSITY COLLEGE

ANAVATTI, SORABA TALUK

SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT

NOW RELIEVED FROM DUTY AND

RESIDING AT DR.JAKIR HUSSAIN ROAD

SHIRALAKOPPA, SHIKARIPURA TALUK

SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

... PETITIONER

(BY SRI:R.BHADRINATH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

THE DIRECTOR

(SECONDARY EDUCATION)

OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER FOR

PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

2

NEW PUBLIC OFFICES

NRUPATHUNGA ROAD

BENGALURU – 560 001

2.

THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF

PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS

BENGALURU DIVISION

CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL COMPOUND

K.G. ROAD

BENGALURU

3.

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF

PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS

SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT

SHIVAMOGGA

4.

THE PRINCIPAL

GOVERNMENT PRE-UNIVERSITY COLLEGE

ANAVATTI

SORABA TALUK

SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 427

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI:I TARANATH POOJARY, ADDITIONAL

GOVERNMENT ADVOCATES)

THIS WRIT PETITON IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO

QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12.7.2011 PASSED

IN APPLICATION 7944 OF 2003 BY THE KARNATAKA

ADMINISTRATIVE

TRIBUNAL

VIDE ANNEXURE-E

AND

CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION NO.7944 OF

2003 AS PRAYED FOR.

*****

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL

HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH, J., MADE THE

FOLLOWING:

3

ORDER

The case of the petitioner is that, he along with other

teachers were appointed as part time Hindi teachers in the

Government Pre-University Colleges and High Schools vide

memorandum dated 05.12.1987. The appointment was till

the end of 31.03.1988 or until a contract employee or

regularly recruited teachers were appointed. Thereafter,

the services were terminated in the year 1992. The

termination was challenged in Writ Petition Nos.20973-76

of 1992 which was disposed off on 02.08.1993 by following

the order passed in Writ Petition Nos.14922-31 of 1993

disposed off on 14.07.1993. It was also observed that the

concerned authorities shall consider the cases of the

petitioners for regularization, if vacancies existed and if

there is no vacancy to consider their cases for recruitment

whenever vacancies arose.

2.

In pursuance to the same, the applicant and

two others were once again appointed as part time

teachers

vide

memorandum

dated

08.04.1994.

4

Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued to the

petitioner on 13.10.1997 as to why his services should not

be terminated on the ground of lack of qualification to hold

the post. A reply was submitted. Yet another show cause

notice was issued. After issuing the same, his services

was

terminated.

Questioning

the

same,

he

filed

application No.7944 of 2003 before the Karnataka

Administrative Tribunal. By the impugned order, the

application was dismissed. Hence, this petition.

3.

The

learned

Counsel

for

the

petitioner

contends that the order of termination is inappropriate.

That he possess the requisite qualification. Therefore, the

termination is not in accordance with law.

4.

The learned Government Advocate disputes

the same. He supports the impugned order.

5.

The material on record would indicate that

substantial opportunity was given to him to show cause as

to why he should not be terminated, specifically on the

5

ground that he did not possess the requisite qualification

to hold the post. The requisite qualification is that, he

should possess a degree in Arts or Science and that he

must be a holder of a degree in education or equivalent

qualification. But the own admission of the petitioner is

that he acquired the requisite qualification of the degree in

education,

subsequent

to

the

date