Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 782 (KAR)

M. T. MANJUNATHA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2002-12-16

K.L.MANJUNATH

body2002
MANJUNATH, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner who is working as a Lecturer in Economics under the 2nd respondent Management has approached this Court beingaggrieved by the order passed by the 1st respondent dated 31. 1. 2000 in Petition No. 100/2000. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent is an aided institution and his appointment has been approved by the 1st respondent also. As the salary payable to him was not paid in accordance with the UGC Scale, he approached the 2nd respondent Management to pay the same. As the petitioners request was not considered by the 2nd respondent by invoking Section 133 of the karnataka Education Act, 1983, the petitioner presented a petition in petition No. 100/2000 which petition has been disposed of by the 1st respondent as per Annexure B to the Writ Petition dated 31. 01. 2001 which reads as hereunder:order The petition has been considered under Section 133 (2) of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 and the respondent is directed to examine the petition filed by the petitioner as per rules and to take necessary action under intimation to the petitioner. ( 3 ) THIS order is called in question in this Writ Petition. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the Principal Secretary to the Government Education Department, without hearing the petitioner invoking Section 133 (2) has directed the petitioner to approach the management once again, when his grievance is against the management. According to him, as the management did not consider the case of the petitioner, the petitioner had approached the government and the Government, without giving effect to the spirit of Section 133 (2), in a mechanical way, has directed the management to consider the issue. Therefore, he contends that the order is passed without application of mind and without understanding the provisions of Section 133 (2) of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983. ( 4 ) LEARNED Government Pleader contends that since the management had not passed any order on the representation of the petitioner, the respondent has rightly directed the management to consider it under intimation to the petitioner. Therefore, he contends that no injustice has been caused to the petitioner and that the respondents have complied with Section 133 (2 ). ( 4 ) LEARNED Government Pleader contends that since the management had not passed any order on the representation of the petitioner, the respondent has rightly directed the management to consider it under intimation to the petitioner. Therefore, he contends that no injustice has been caused to the petitioner and that the respondents have complied with Section 133 (2 ). ( 5 ) IN view of the rival contentions urged by the learned Counsel for the parties, what is required to be considered by this Court is: Whether the respondent No. 1 has passed the order considering the relevant provisions of Section 133 (2) of the Karnataka Education act, 1983? ( 6 ) IN order to appreciate the case of the petitioner is better to look into the provisions of Section 133 (2) of the Karnataka Education act, 1983, which reads as hereunder:133. Powers of Government to give directions. (2) The State Government may give such directions to any educational institution or tutorial institution as in its opinion are necessary or expedient for carrying out the purposes of this Act or to give effect to any of the provisions contained therein or of any rules or orders made thereunder and the Governing Council or the owner, as the case may be, of such institution shall comply with every such direction. ( 7 ) IN the present case, the petition is filed under Section 133 (2) of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, which provision clearly say that the Government shall issue directions to any educational institution or tutorial institution as in its opinion are necessary or expedient for carrying out the purposes of this Act or to give effect to any of the provisions contained therein. ( 8 ) FROM this, it is clear that when ever a party approaches by invoking this provision of law, a duty is cast upon the Government to examine whether the grievance of the complainant comes within the four corners of Section 133 (2) and whether the governing council or owner of such educational institution has violated any provisions contained in the Education Act or any Rules or Order made therein. If the Government is of the opinion that the governing Council or the owner of the institution has violated the rules, then the government has to issue such directions that may be necessary in order to comply with the provisions of the Act or any Rules or order made therein. ( 9 ) IN the instant case, the grievance of the petitioner before the 1st respondent was that though he was entitled to a pay scale and such allowance on par with the Government lecturers and even if he was entitled to draw the UGC scale, the same has not been extended to him by the Management and that his grievances were not considered by the Management. When the petitioner has approached the respondent No. 1 with such grievances, it was the duty of the Government to examine whether the petitioner was entitled for such reliefs and whether the management has followed any provision of law or the rules made by the Government. On enquiry, if the Government had found that there is a violation by the governing Council or the owner of the institution, it is the duty of the Government to issue such directions and to comply with the orders of the Government. But in the instant case, in a mechanical way, the 1st respondent has passed an order directing the management itself to examine the complaint of the petitioner and to take necessary action under intimation to the petitioner. From this, it is clear that the 1st respondent, without application of mind, without following the provisions of Section 133 (2) of the Karnataka Education act, 1983, has passed this order. ( 10 ) AS a matter of fact, in similar cases, this Court in Writ Petition no. 15762/2001 (C. K. ANANDA KUMAR vs THE STATE OF karnataka AND OTHERS1) has observed how an application has to be considered under the provisions of Section 133 (2) of the karnataka Education Act, 1983. Without following the procedure laid down by the Act, the present order has been passed by the 1st respondent. Therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. ( 11 ) IN the result, this Writ Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute. Without following the procedure laid down by the Act, the present order has been passed by the 1st respondent. Therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. ( 11 ) IN the result, this Writ Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute. The 1st respondent is hereby directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh on merits in accordance with law by following the provisions of Section 133 (2) of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, within three months from today. 1. W. P. No. 15762/2001 --- *** --- .