Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 261 (KAR)

P. S. Mugalihal v. State of Karnataka

2016-03-14

B.S.PATIL

body2016
ORDER : B.S. Patil, J. 1. Though fourteen teachers working in different educational institutions run by the 7th respondent-Sarvodaya Shikshana Trust, Aravatagi, Dharwad, have jointly filed these writ petitions, challenging Annexure-H, a communication issued by the State Government refusing permission to appoint the teachers to fill up the posts in different institutions run by the 7th respondent, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners 4, 6, 9 and 13 have been disposed of as not pressed because their appointments have been already approved by the Department. Therefore, the dispute with regard to the approval of appointments of the other petitioners only survives for consideration in these writ petitions. In the connected writ petition bearing W.P. No. 106649 of 2015 filed by one Nirmala, the same communication Annexure-H has been challenged and similar relief has been sought. Hence, the petitions are clubbed, heard together and are disposed of by this common order. 2. Facts leading to these writ petitions, stated in nut-shell are that, 7th respondent-Sarvodaya Shikshana Trust, Aravatagi, Dharwad is a Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 during the year 1956. The said Trust has been running four Educational Institutions in Dharwad Taluk. They are: (i) Alur Venkat Rao Composite Pre-University College, Dharwad; (ii) The New English Composite Pre-University College, Alnavar Taluk, Dharwad; (iii) Sarvodaya Shikshana Trust (SST) Girls High School, Alnavar, Taluk, Dharwad; (iv) Hanumantappa Mavaler High School, Mugad Taluk, Dharwad. Apart from the four institutions, it is stated that some Sanskrit Pathshaalas have been also run by the Trust. All these institutions have been admitted to grant-in-aid. The posts of teaching staff that were admitted to grant-in-aid had become vacant with effect from the year 2000 upon certain contingencies, such as retirement, promotion, etc. of the occupants of the posts. 3. 7th respondent-Trust has made appointments as against the sanctioned posts by inviting applications from eligible candidates so that the academic activities and the teaching and training programme in the institutions was not hampered. These appointments have been made during the period spread over from the years 2000 to 2011. Prior to making such appointments, 7th respondent has written several letters to the State Government and authorities of the Department of Public Instructions on various dates seeking permission to appoint Teachers for the sanctioned vacant posts. These appointments have been made during the period spread over from the years 2000 to 2011. Prior to making such appointments, 7th respondent has written several letters to the State Government and authorities of the Department of Public Instructions on various dates seeking permission to appoint Teachers for the sanctioned vacant posts. When the State Government did not grant sanction, compelled by the circumstances and the need to run the institutions for imparting education to the students, 7th respondent has invited applications and has filled up the posts of teachers. 4. Various correspondences made requesting the authorities to accord permission to the 7th respondent to make appointments to the vacant posts of Teachers have been produced by the petitioners, at Annexures-B to B9. A copy of the advertisement published in Udayavani Kannada daily newspaper inviting applications from the eligible candidates to make appointments is produced at Annexure-C. The management of 7th respondent has requested the respondent-authorities to participate in the selection process of the Teachers and the letter written in this regard is produced at Annexure-D. 5. According to 7th respondent, it has made selection by following the due process and by observing the procedure prescribed and all these petitioners have been duly selected and appointed as against the sanctioned vacant posts in the interest of the institutions and the students. Appointment orders of the petitioners are produced as Annexure-E series. 6. Thereafter, the list of appointments made by the 7th respondent was forwarded to the respondent-authorities, followed by several representations requesting respondents 1 to 3 to approve the appointment of teachers. One such letter is produced at Annexure-G. 7. By the impugned endorsement produced at Annexure-H, dated 7th May, 2013, 2nd respondent-Commissioner of Public Instructions, Bengaluru, has informed the 7th respondent that since there was a dispute between the rival managements, permission could not be granted to the 7th respondent to make appointments. 8. However, as could be seen from the subsequent communication produced at Annexure-J, dated 26th April, 2014, the State Government has accorded permission to the 7th respondent to fill up thirteen vacant posts in different institutions run by 7th respondent from out of the eligible candidates by duly advertising the same. 8. However, as could be seen from the subsequent communication produced at Annexure-J, dated 26th April, 2014, the State Government has accorded permission to the 7th respondent to fill up thirteen vacant posts in different institutions run by 7th respondent from out of the eligible candidates by duly advertising the same. In this background, being aggrieved by the communication Annexure-H, dated 7th May, 2013, letter dated 26th April, 2014 produced at Annexure-J and consequent advertisement issued vide Annexure-K by respondent 7 inviting applications to fill up thirteen posts, petitioners, who have been teaching in the institutions for several years, have approached this Court. 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioners Sri Mahesh Wodeyar, submits that petitioners have been rendering services in the institutions run by the 7th respondent for several years. They have been eventually appointed by following due procedure after intimating the State Government. The State Government did not grant approval for the appointments on the sole ground that there was internal dispute between different factions of the Management and unless the dispute was settled, permission to fill up the posts, or for that matter, approving appointments could not be granted. It is submitted by him that in respect of the same institutions, several similarly placed Teachers were continued and their appointments were approved by virtue of the directions issued in Writ Petition Nos. 39642 to 39649 of 2000 and connected matters. A copy of this order passed by this Court on 12th April, 2001 has been produced as Annexure-L. 10. Learned Counsel submits that merely because there has been an internal rivalry in the Management of the Institutions, the fate of the Teachers cannot be kept hanging in balance. He urges that some of the Teachers would be laying down their office in the near future and some of them are of advanced age and have been struggling to have their tenure secured. It is further urged that relief sought in the writ petitions may be granted and a direction may be issued to the Government and authorities of the Department of Public Instructions to approve the appointments of petitioners. He has produced, along with a memo, copies of the Government Order dated 9th February, 2009 passed in similar circumstances, approving appointments of Teachers in different Institutions. 11. He has produced, along with a memo, copies of the Government Order dated 9th February, 2009 passed in similar circumstances, approving appointments of Teachers in different Institutions. 11. Learned Counsel appearing for the 7th respondent-Trust, Sri B.V. Somapur, contends that 7th respondent has no objection to grant the relief sought by the petitioners, as petitioners have been duly appointed and have been indeed serving in different institutions run by the 7th respondent. He further points out that question of quashing the notification issued inviting application in respect of thirteen posts would not arise because appointments made pursuant to the said notification has been approved by the Government and it will not in any manner affect the interest of the present petitioners. Learned AGA supports the orders under challenge. 12. An application has been filed by the rival group of the Management, Sri Shriharsh A. Neelopant representing them submits that as there is a dispute regarding the Management of the 7th respondent-Trust, petitioners having been appointed by incompetent persons, their appointments cannot be approved. 13. Having heard the learned Counsel for all parties, it emerges that all these petitioners were initially appointed as temporary employees in the vacant posts by the 7th respondent-Management. They have been rendering their services as such. The Management has appointed them as against vacancies caused on account of retirement, promotion, etc. of the occupants of the posts, which were admitted to salary grant 7th respondent has been making representations to the State Government to accord permission to fill up those posts by inviting applications in accordance with law. However, the respondents have refused permission on the ground that there was an internal dispute between different factions of the Management. 14. The Institutions, which have been admitted to grant-in-aid and that have been imparting training and education to number of students, have appointed these teachers. They have been continuously imparting training and education for several years. There was no justification for the State to deny permission to fill up these posts, as otherwise it would tantamount to directing closure of the Institutions, because education of the students in these institutions could not have been possible without the Teachers. They have been continuously imparting training and education for several years. There was no justification for the State to deny permission to fill up these posts, as otherwise it would tantamount to directing closure of the Institutions, because education of the students in these institutions could not have been possible without the Teachers. As long as these appointments are made against sanctioned vacant posts by selecting eligible candidates, inviting applications and by following the requisite procedure, there is absolutely no justification for the State and its authorities to deny permission for such appointments and to accord approval to the same, merely on the ground that different factions of the management were fighting to assume reigns of the management. 15. It has to be stated at this stage that indeed in the appeal filed in Misc. Appeal Nos. 79 and 80 of 2006, the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, had passed an interim order dated 1st April, 2015 recognising the problems faced by the Trust with regard to the appointment of Teachers to the vacant posts in various institutions run by the Trust; the fact that the Trust had initiated appointment process and had completed the same and what remained was only formal approval to be accorded by the Government and therefore, question of again making appointments to the vacant posts as claimed by the rival management would not arise. Eventually, the said appeals in M.A. Nos. 79 and 80 of 2006 filed by the rival group was dismissed on 16th January, 2016 with an observation that dismissal of the appeal would not come in the way of the parties to have their rights settled before appropriate forum. 16. The rival Management - impleading applicant herein, had filed a suit in O.S. No. 100 of 2012. The suit also came to be dismissed on 17th November, 2014. Against the dismissal of the suit, a regular appeal has been filed which is pending. 17. Mere pendency of the litigation between the two factions of the Management cannot come in the way of State and its authorities considering the appointments made by the 7th respondent-Trust to the vacant posts in the aided institutions, for the purpose of approval of the appointments. 18. 17. Mere pendency of the litigation between the two factions of the Management cannot come in the way of State and its authorities considering the appointments made by the 7th respondent-Trust to the vacant posts in the aided institutions, for the purpose of approval of the appointments. 18. It is not in the interest of students, the Institutions, more particularly of teachers who are petitioners herein, to continue under such uncertainties on the ground that a dispute was pending between different factions of management. The State Government has to take a decision with regard to approval of appointments made to the vacant posts. Hence, these writ petitions deserve to be allowed in part. Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed in part. The impugned decision taken as per Annexure-H refusing to accord permission to appoint and fill up the vacant posts is set aside. As, admittedly, the 7th respondent has appointed the petitioners to the vacant posts of Teachers and the petitioners have been serving in the institution for several years, the State Government is directed to consider the case of the petitioners and accord approval in accordance with law, keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of the case, the order already passed by this Court, vide Annexure-L and the observations made hereinabove. The State Government shall take expeditious decision in the matter, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The presence of the proposed impleading respondent in these proceedings is unnecessary as this Court is not expressing any opinion with regard to the internal dispute between the different factions of the Management. Hence, the application filed for impleading is rejected.