ORDER : The petitioner who is an Assistant Teacher is before this Court for writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 08.08.2013 made in appeal No.15/2009 passed by the second respondent as per Annexure-P8 and the order dated 23.03.2007 bearing No. ANU/PRA.SHI.A. ITARE 66/05-06 passed by the fourth respondent as per Annexure-P5 and writ of direction directing the respondent Nos.4 and 5 to pay the salary and back wages to the petitioner with all consequential benefits flowing from it along with 12% interest per annum and quash the order at Annexure-F dated 30.01.1997 passed by the fourth respondent and further writ of mandamus to direct the respondent Nos.4 and 5 to 6th continue the petitioner as Assistant Teacher in respondent’s school with consequential benefits. 2. Brief facts of the case: It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 28.10.1987 and his appointment was approved by the department on 24.11.1987 w.e.f. 02.11.1987. The petitioner was given salary and he was admitted to grant-in-aid along with several other teachers by the Education Secretary, State of Karnataka on 16.11.1992. It was further contended that the petitioner was granted time bond increment after completion of 15 years service. The time bond increment was granted with effect from 15.11.2002 and he was also granted annual increment every year. The petitioner was not paid salary and same was challenged before this Court in writ petition No.21478-99/94 and connected matters. This Court after hearing both the parties by its order dated 19.12.1994, directed the respondents to consider the payment of arrears of salary to the petitioner from April 1994 in accordance with law within two weeks from the date of receipt of order. 3. Thereafter, in view of the direction issued by this Court, the petitioner approached the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on 21.11.1998. The revision petition filed before the State Government in No.144/1999 was allowed with certain directions. The Revisional Authority quashed the order of the Deputy Director of Public Instructions’ and directed Deputy Director of Public Instructions to hear the petitioner afresh and based on records, pass considered speaking orders after hearing all the petitioners. Thereafter, the Deputy Director of Public Instructions passed the impugned order on 23.03.2007 holding that the petitioner is not entitled to salary grant. 4. Thereafter, the Deputy Director of Public Instructions passed the impugned order on 23.03.2007 holding that the petitioner is not entitled to salary grant. 4. It is further contended that the Deputy Director of Public Instructions by an order dated 23.03.2007, rejected the claim of the petitioner and others. The aggrieved teachers namely, Sri.Era Mallappa has filed W.P.No.5125/2007 and Sri.K.Mallikarjuna Swamy filed W.P.No.2860/2008 against the very impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Public Instructions dated 23.03.2007. This Court considering the entire material on record by the order dated 07.01.2009, allowed W.P. No.2860/2008 and the orders at Annexures-Z3 and Z6 dated 23.03.2007 and 16.01.2008 are quashed only in so far as the petitioner therein and directed the 5th respondent Deputy Director of Public Instructions, Tumkuru District to post the petitioner to any aided school in Tumkur District within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. So also, in the case of Era Mallappa who filed W.P.No.5125/2007, this Court by an order dated 24.04.2009 allowed the writ petition and the order dated 23.03.2007 was quashed only in so far as the petitioner and directed the Deputy Director of Public Instructions to reconsider the matter in accordance with law and also observed that it needles to say that pending reconsideration of the matter, the department is bound to pay salary to the petitioner. Therein the said order passed by this Court dated 24.04.2009 and 07.01.2009 made in writ petition Nos.5125/2007 and 2860/2008 in respect of other teachers has reached finality. 5. Sri.Prakash.Shetty.S, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said orders have been implemented by the Deputy Director of Public Instructions in all fairness he should have also given relief to the petitioner without driving the petitioner to this Court. Hence, this writ petition for the relief sought for. 6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties to the lis. 7. Sri Prakash Shetty, learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent and confirmed by 4th respondent rejecting the claim of the petitioner is erroneous and contrary to the material on record. 6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties to the lis. 7. Sri Prakash Shetty, learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent and confirmed by 4th respondent rejecting the claim of the petitioner is erroneous and contrary to the material on record. He further contended that in identical circumstances, the order dated 23.3.2007 passed by the 4th respondent was 4th quashed only in so far as the petitioner therein was concerned with a direction to consider the matter in accordance with law, which has attained finality and the 4th respondent – DDPI has implemented the order passed by this Court in respect of other teachers whose claims were also rejected along with the petitioner as per Annexure-P5. 8. It was further contended that the impugned action of the 5th respondent in not considering the case of the petitioner as has been done in the cases of one Mallikarjuna and Eramallappa is in utter violation of provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He further contended that the DDPI being the jurisdictional authority, he cannot discriminate between the teachers though they are working in the same Taluk. Therefore, he sought to quash the impugned orders passed by the authorities by allowing the present writ petition as prayed for. 9. Per contra, Sri Y.D. Harsha, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents sought to justify the impugned orders passed by respondent Nos. 2 and 4 and contended that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief but he is unable to sustain the fact that in identical circumstances against the very impugned order dated 23.3.2007 passed by the 4th respondent DDPI which was the subject matter in W.P.Nos. 5125/2007 and 2860/2008 filed by Eramallappa and K. Mallikarjunaswamy who were similarly situated like the present petitioner and the said petitions were allowed by this Court on 24.4.2009 and 7.1.2009 respectively and the same have reached finality. 10. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed on 28.10.1987 which was approved with effect from 2.11.1987. He was admitted to grant-in-code by the Education Secretary, State of Karnataka on 16.11.1992. The salary of the petitioner and others were withheld. 10. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed on 28.10.1987 which was approved with effect from 2.11.1987. He was admitted to grant-in-code by the Education Secretary, State of Karnataka on 16.11.1992. The salary of the petitioner and others were withheld. Therefore, the petitioner and others were constrained to approach this Court in W.P. No. 6337/1996 and connected matters which were allowed on 6.9.1996. It is also not in dispute that thereafter the matter went to the State Government and the State Government by the order dated 30.1.1997 directed the 4th respondent-DDPI to consider the case of the petitioners therein and pass orders. It is also not in dispute that on the basis of the direction issued by the State Government, exercising his revisional powers, the 4th respondent-DDPI by the impugned order 23.3.2007 rejected the claim of the petitioners and others holding that they are not entitled to any Grant-in-aid code, since it has been withdrawn by the Government. The said order was confirmed by the Lower Appellate Authority as per Annexure-P8 on 8.8.2013. 11. It is also not in dispute that the other teachers viz. Eramallappa and Mallikarjunaswamy approached this Court in W.P.No. 5125/2007 against the very impugned order dated 3.6.2006 and this Court by the order dated 24.4.2009 allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order therein passed by the DDPI only in so far as the petitioner therein and directed the DDPI to reconsider the matter in accordance with law and an observation was made that pending reconsideration, the Department was bound to pay the salary which has reached finality. It is also not in dispute that Sri K. Mallikarjunaswamy who was similarly situated like the petitioner also filed W.P.No.2860/2008 against the very impugned order passed in the present case dated 23.3.2007 and this Court after hearing both the parties by the order dated 7.1.2009 allowed the writ petition and has held as under: 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Master in Srinivasa Higher Primary School on 21.4.1989. He was transferred to Srinivasa Lower Primary School, Kallur. While he was in service in the said school, his appointment was approved by the 5th respondent, which is also not in dispute. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Master in Srinivasa Higher Primary School on 21.4.1989. He was transferred to Srinivasa Lower Primary School, Kallur. While he was in service in the said school, his appointment was approved by the 5th respondent, which is also not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that a show cause notice was issued on an earlier occasion alleging that he was not appointed in accordance with the relevant Rules. The 5th respondent passed an order holding that the appointment of the petitioner was contrary to law. the said order has been set aside by the District Judge in MA. EAT. No.5/1999 dated 1.12.2001. The order of the District Judge was implemented and again petitioner was posted to different schools thereafter. The 5th respondent has again issued a show cause notice on the similar set of facts and circumstances as per Annexure- ‘Y’ on 17.11.2006 and order of termination was passed thereafter as per Annexure- ‘Z3’ dated 23.3.2007. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the appellate authority as per Annexure- ‘Z6’ dated 16.1.2008. Neither the 5th respondent nor the appellate authority have taken into consideration the order passed by the District Judge in MA.EAT. No.5/1999 dated 1.12.2001. Having regard to the order of the District Judge in MA.E.A.T.No.5/1999, which has attained finality, the 5th respondent could not have issued a show cause notice again calling upon petitioner to show cause as to why his services should not be terminated on the ground that his appointment was illegal. The order of the District Judge is binding on the respondents. 8. In the result, writ petition succeeds and it is accordingly allowed. The orders at Annexures- ‘Z3’ and ‘Z6’ dated 23.3.2007 and 16.1.2008 are hereby quashed only in so far as petitioner is concerned. The 5th respondent is directed to post the petitioner to any aided school in Tumkur District within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to make an 5th appropriate application before the respondent seeking backwages. If such 5th an application is filed, the respondent is directed to consider the same in accordance with law. No costs. 12. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to make an 5th appropriate application before the respondent seeking backwages. If such 5th an application is filed, the respondent is directed to consider the same in accordance with law. No costs. 12. In that view of the matter, it is clear that the very impugned order dated 23.3.2007 passed by the DDPI – 4th respondent and the order 16.1.2008 passed by the Lower Appellate Authority were quashed with a direction to the authorities to post the petitioner to any aided school in Tumkur District within a period of three months with liberty to him to make appropriate application before the DDPI seeking backwages and if any such application was filed, the DDPI was directed to consider the same in accordance with law which has attained finality. 13. When the similarly situated persons have filed writ petitions before this Court against the very impugned order dated 23.3.2007 which were allowed in the year 2007 itself and have reached finality, in all fairness, the 4th respondent-DDPI could have considered the case of the petitioner and granted the relief on par with Eramallappa and K. Mallikarjunaswamy. 14. For the reasons stated above, writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 8.8.2013 passed in Appeal No.15/2009 by the Appellate Authority and the 4th impugned order dated 23.3.2007 passed by the respondent only in so far as the petitioner is concerned are quashed with direction to the 4th respondent to post the petitioner to any aided school in Tumkur District within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to make an appropriate application before the 5th respondent seeking backwages. If such an application is filed, the 5th respondent is directed to consider the same and pass orders in accordance with law. 15. However, liberty is also reserved to the State Government to take action against respondent No.6-Institution in accordance with law.