Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR W.A. Nos.100631-100635/2015 & W.A. No.100637/2015 (EDN-RES)
BETWEEN :
1. KUM. SHREELAKSHMI B. PATIL D/O. SRI.SHIVANAND B.PATIL AGE:16 YEARS SINCE MINOR REP BY HER FATHER SRI.SHIVANAND B. PATIL S/O. BASAVANAGAUD C. PATIL AGE:44 YEARS RESIDING AT YABARATTI RAIBAG TALUK, BELAGAVI DISTRICT
2. KUM. SMITHA D/O. SRI SAIBANNA B KUDALAGI AGE:16 YEARS SINCE MINOR REP. BY HER FATHER SRI SAIBANNA B KUDALAGI S/O. BHEEMARAHA KODALAGI AGE:41 YEARS C/O F.H. DHANAUSH HIREMURALA POST MUDDEBIHAL TALUK VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT.
3. KUM.SHEETAL VAIJANATH ANKALAGI D/O. SRI.VAIJANATH G. ANKALAGI AGE:16 YEARS SINCE MINOR REP BY HER FATHER SRI.VAIJANATH G. ANKALAGI S/O. SRI GIRIMALLAPPA ANKALAGI, AGE : ABOUT 52 YEARS MORATAGI POST-586123 SINDAGI TALUK, VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT.
4. KUM.SAHANA NEERALAGI D/O. SRI.RAJASHEKAR NEERALAGI AGE : ABOUT 17 YEARS SINCE MINOR REP. BY HER FATHER SRI.RAJASHEKAR NEERALAGI S/O SRI.SAHEBAGOUD AGE : ABOUT 46 YEARS RESIDING AT TILAGUL POST SINDAGI TALUK VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT.
5. KUM. AKSHATHA TELLUR D/O. SRI.MALAKAPPA TELLUR AGE : ABOUT 16 YEARS SINCE MINOR REP. BY HER FATHER SRI.MALLAKAPPA TELLUR S/O. SHANTHAPPA TELLUR AGE : 51 YEARS RESIDING AT NEAR BUS STAND VIJAYAPURA ROAD SINDAGI-586128, BIJAPUR DISTRICT. 6. KUM.AYESHA CHINCHALIKAR D/O. SRI.BURANA SAHEB CHINCHALIKAR AGE : ABOUT 16 YEARS SINCE MINOR REP. BY HER FATHER SRI.BURANA SAHEB CHINCHALIKAR S/O SRI.MOULA SAHEB CHINCHALIKAR AGE : ABOUT 51 YEARS RESIDING AT VIDYANAGAR HARUGERI POST-591220 RAIBAG TALUK, BELAGAVI DISTRICT.
... APPELLANTS (BY SRI H. M. MURLIDHAR & SUBASH B. SANKAD, ADVOCATES)
AND :
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY & SECONDARY EDUCATION, MULTISTOREYED BUILDING VIDHANA VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001 REP BY ITS SECRETARY
2. KITTUR RANI CHANNAMMA MEMORIAL COMMITTEE (CONSTITUTED UNDER GOVT.
ORDER NO.ED 53 SMS 69 DATED 17.05.1969)
KITTUR, BAILAHONGAL TALUK BELAGAVI DISTRICT - 591115 REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN
3. KITTUR RANI CHANNAMMA RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL FOR GIRLS KITTUR, BAILAHONGAL TALUK BELAGAVI DISTRICT - 591115 REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M. KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)
THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED U/S.4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THESE WRIT APPEALS AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 14.09.2015, PASSED IN WP.NO.109713/2015 AND W.P.NOs.109715-109719/2015, CONSEQUENTLY, ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS TO THE RESPONDENTS TO ISSUE TRANSFER CERTIFICATE, MARKS CARD, STUDY CERTIFICATE AND RURAL CERTIFICATE, WITHOUT INSISTING FOR REFUND OF THE SCHOLARSHIP AMOUNT AVAILED BY THE APPELLANTS DURING THEIR STUDIES IN THE 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS INSTITUTION OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER/S AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the order dated 14.09.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.109713/2015 & W.P. Nos.109715-719/2015, whereby the learned Single Judge directed the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to issue the Transfer Certificate to the appellants on the date on which the scholarship amounts are refunded to the respondent Nos.2 and 3, the appellants have approached this Court.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the Kittur Rani Channamma Residential School for Girls is managed by the Kittur Rani Channamma Memorial Committee. The Committee was constituted under the Government Order dated 17.05.1969. By a Government order dated 27.06.1969, the Government sanctioned funds for the school. According to the Government Order, the scholarship would be provided to girls coming from poor and needy families. However, the guardians were required to enter into a bond with the school. One of the conditions of the bond is that “if for any reason not beyond the control of either the student or the guarantor the student fails to pursue her studies at the said school till the completion of the Secondary/Higher Secondary Course, the guarantor shall forthwith pay to the Governors in cash the sum the student has received from the school and / or the State Government / Central Government the value of the scholarships, he / she has received for the period the student was at the said school.”
3. The appellants joined the school from VI standard onwards. While completing their secondary school, in 2010, all of the appellants passed the S.S.L.C. Examination with distinction in the examination conducted by Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board. Subsequently, after completing S.S.L.C., the appellants’ parents felt that their children should take their admission for PUC I year Course in other schools. Therefore, the parents insisted that the Transfer Certificate and Marks Sheet should be released by the school. But despite their insistence, the respondent No.3, the school, did not grant the Transfer Certificate. Therefore, aggrieved by the omission committed by the school, the appellants filed the writ petition. However, by order dated 14.09.2015, the learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petitions in the terms mentioned above. Hence, these appeals before this Court.
4. Mr. H. M. Murlidhar, the learned counsel for the appellant has raised the following contentions before this Court:-
Firstly, the learned single Judge has wrongly relied upon the case of Kumari Jyothi vs. State of Karnataka and Others (Writ Petition No.100561/2013 decided by this Court on 06.01.2014). According to the learned counsel, Kumari Jyothi was leaving the school immediately after completing the 8th standard. Considering this particular fact, the Court had concluded that, “according to the bond entered between the parents of Kumari Jyothi and respondents, her parents were duty bound to pay the scholarship amount paid to Kumari Jyothi as a student”. However, in the present case, according to the learned counsel, appellants want to leave the school after completing S.S.L.C. Therefore, the case of Kumari Jyothi is distinguishable on factual matrix.
Secondly, the learned single Judge has ignored the fact that the bond entered between the parents and the school is not in consonance with the Government Order dated 27.06.1969. While the Government Order dated 27.06.1969 prescribed that, “in case the students were to leave the school prior to completing secondary/higher secondary course”, the bond entered between the parents and the school prescribes that “students leaving school prior to completing PUC” is not permitted. In the Government Order dated 27.06.1969, an option is given to the students to leave the school either after completing the secondary course, or after completing higher secondary course. But such an option has not been given in the bond. Thus, the bond is contrary to the Government Order dated
27.06.1969.
Thirdly, in case the learned single Judge
