National Education Society and The Principal A.E.S. National College Gowribidanur Kolar District vs Sri K N Venakasubramanyam Rao and Others

It is the case of the 1st respondent that he was appointed on 6.5.1987 by appellant no. 2 herein on full time basis to a permanent post but he was paid salary of Rs. 300/- per month initially and it was raised later to Rs. 400-475. Though, he was in continuous and uninterrupted service, the respondents were deliberately issuing letters to see that there was break of service by one day. Appellant no. 2 was promising him that he would recommend for providing regular pay scale after grant-in-aid was received from the Government. It is further contended by the 1st respondent that on 19.4.1994 when he went to duty, appellant no. 2 herein refused to allow him to discharge his duties on the ground that his services were terminated as per the instructions of appellant no. 1 herein. There was no written communication in that regard as such, he filed W.P. 4267/1997 on the file of this Court challenging the said termination and in the writ petition vide order dated 2.7.1998, a direction was given to him/1st respondent herein to invoke the remedy under the provisions of the Karnataka Education Act, 1993 consequent of which he preferred MA (EAT) 4/1998 on the file of the Principal District Judge and EAT, Kolar seeking redressal of his grievances. The said appeal was allowed in part. The appellants herein were directed to make recommendations to the Government of Karnataka for sanction of post and for promotion to appoint the 1st respondent on such recommendation made by the respondent. It is for the concerned authorities to consider the said recommendation for regularisation or absorption of appellant in the college in view of his long uninterrupted service in the college. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant herein preferred W.P. 7202/2004 which was dismissed with the observations that the petitioner/appellants herein not being in a position to meet the contentions of the respondent, has failed to file its rejoinder and on the basis of the rival contentions, the contentions urged by the 1st respondent was upheld. Aggrieved by the said dismissal of Writ Petition, the appellants have preferred the above appeal contending interalia amongst other contentions that the delay in preferring the appeal before the Education Appellate Tribunal was not entitled to be condoned.

The real issues involved in the appeal are not considered. The tribunal erred in finally disposing of the appeal without calling upon the management to establish its case. Further, it is contended that the rulings relied upon by the respondent herein have no bearing with the issues involved in the appeal. It is specifically contended that the contentions of the appellant that their existed no vacancy what-so-ever for accommodating the respondent, has not gone into while disposing of the appeal as well as the writ petition. Likewise, it is further contended that the Court below failed to appreciate that the principal of the college was not the appointing authority and even, if assuming that the respondent was appointed temporarily by the principal, the same would in no way burden the principal of the college for regularising his services etc., has sought allowing of the appeal.

Heard the arguments.

Even according to the 1st respondent herein, he was appointed by the 2nd appellant herein viz., the principal and not by appellant no. 1. Likewise, it is further seen that admittedly, the 1st respondent was prevented from carrying out the work on 19.4.1994 but he preferred W.P. 4267/1997 only in the year 1997 after a lapse of nearly 3 years and the said W.P. 4267/1997 was dismissed by order dated 2.7.1998 observing that other efficacious, effective and alternative remedy is available'' and if so advised, the 1st respondent herein may avail his statutory remedy by way of filing appeal application under the M.A. (EAT) 4/1998 within 6 weeks from the date of such order and in the event of he filing such appeal, the same may be disposed of within 3 months from the date of filing thereon and thus, it is seen that with regard to question of limitation, no direction is given.

On perusal of the orders passed by the M.A.(EAT) 94/98, at paragraph 5 it is observed as hereunder:

It is relevant to note at this stage itself that this E.A.T. case was earlier pending on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kolar, who after having heard both the parties on this limitation application the Tribunal passed an order on 30.6.2000 allowing the application and condoned the delay in preferring the appeal, and evidently and admittedly, respondents have not challenged the said matter.

Thus, it is seen that the said order condoning the delay in preferring the appeal has become conclusive and the same cannot be adjudicated upon afresh in this appeal. Further, on perusal of the impugned order it is observed that 1st respondent was employed between 1987 and 1994 which would only indicate that there was need for services of the said respondent and that it was a continuous employment and the break in service was only to enable the petitioner to take the contention that the respondent was not regularly employed with the petitioner. Further, it is also seen that the co-employee of the 1st respondent who was similarly placed with the appellant herein, who was also illegally terminated and ultimately, he succeeded and the Court directed reinstatement of the co-employee with consequential benefits against the very appellant herein. Even in the order passed by the M.A.(EAT), reference is made with regard to such grant of relief of another co-employee by name Ramanjinappa as granted in W.P. 12207/94, the same benefits should be extended to 1st respondent herein. Thus, for all these reasons, the 1st respondent is also entitled for similar relief as granted to another co-employee if such an appointment is permissible under law and the impugned order does not call for any interference. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.