AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.S. Patil
Learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to take notice for respondents 1 to 6.
In this writ petition, petitioners are challenging the Government Order dated 07.04.2010 produced at Annexure-II whereby the Karnataka State Education Federation. College of Education, Tumkur, has been admitted for salary grant in respect of some of the teaching staff and non-teaching staff mentioned thereunder on certain conditions including the condition that the institute and the employees employed therein shall abide by the final order to be passed by the Civil Court in the pending suit. Petitioners have also sought for a direction to the 1st respondent-Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Government of Karnataka, to consider their representation dated 28.02.2011 produced at Annexure-J and issue a fresh order regarding grant-in-aid and of the approval of the list of employees both teaching and non-teaching.
Petitioner No. 1 is the president of the Karnataka State Education Federation, College of Education. Tumkur. 2nd respondent claims to be its Vice President. Whereas the 3rd respondent has described himself as Secretary of the said institution. Admittedly, there is a dispute pending in the Civil Court with regard to the management of the college in O.S.No. 8054/1997 on the file of the City Civil Judge, Bangalore, wherein a relief of declaration is sought against the State Government and the Director of Primary Education, stating that the defendants have no authority to interfere with the affairs and management of the B.Ed college run by KSEF, Tumkur and that the plaintiffs therein continued to be the Secretary and Chairman of the said institution. A decree of permanent injunction is also sought against the defendants restraining them from interfering with the affairs and management of the College. One Venkateshaiah, claiming to be the Secretary of the College and another person by name Thippaiah, claiming to be the President of the institution have filed the said suit against the State Government and the Director.
The case of the petitioners is that the civil suit was filed in view of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No. 29736/1997 and 30864/1997 disposed of on 29.10.1997, wherein it was held that the appropriate remedy for the petitioners was to file a civil suit and agitate their grievance. Indeed the said order passed by this Court which is produced at Annexure-A reserved such right to the institution to file a suit to redress their grievance as the relief sought by the petitioners in the writ petition was primarily against the 2nd respondent which was a private body not being an instrumentality of the State or a body constituted under any statute.
In the present writ petition, the grievance of the petitioners is that while the dispute was still pending adjudication before the Civil Court, the State Government had issued a conditional order dated 19.05.2009 admitting for salary grant some of the employees of the private colleges to grant-in-aid and the KSEF College of Education has been notified as one such college for grant in aid. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that as per Annexure-C Government Order dated 19.05.2009, one of the conditions imposed while taking a decision to admit the teaching and non-teaching staff for salary grant was to confirm if any civil suit was pending in any Court in respect of the college concerned. He invites the attention of the Court to Clause-7 of the Government Order in this connection and submits that despite such a condition imposed and though a Civil suit was indeed pending in O.S.No. 8054/1997, without referring to the same, the Authorities have proceeded to accord approval to admit for salary grant the teaching and non-teaching staff in violation of the condition imposed. It is his further contention that some of the employees have been recommended as staff entitled for grant-in-aid though their names were not found in the attendance register as on the date the Government order came to be passed vide. Annexure C. in other words, it is his contention that staff who were not eligible are conferred with such benefit on account of the illegalities committed by the officials. It is in this background that the petitioners are calling in question the order dated 07.04.2010 which is a sequel to Annexure-C order and has culminated in the teaching and non-teaching staff of the institution having been admitted for salary grant.
Learned Additional Government Advocate who has taken notice for respondents 1 to 6 submits that Government order at Annexure-H makes it clear that the admission of some of the employees for salary grant would be subject to the result of the Civil Suit pending in O.S.No. 8054/1997 and that if any of the employees had given any incorrect or false information, their appointment would be liable for cancellation. In this regard, he invites the attention of the Court to condition Nos. 5 and 6 in the Government order dated 07.04.2010 produced at Annexure-H. He therefore contends that there is no substance in the grievance made by the petitioners.
Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire materials on record. I find that the Government order produced at. Annexure-H is made subject to the result of the civil suit pending and it is clearly stated therein that if any of the employees securing the benefit of grant-in-aid had given false particulars and details regarding their appointment, then their appointment would be liable to be cancelled. In the wake of such condition imposed in the Government order, the petitioners cannot have any grievance against Annexure-H order. If it is their case that some of the employees have been wrongly conferred the benefit of grant-in-aid, then it will be open for them to bring it to the notice of the competent authorities furnishing the details of their appointment narrating the alleged illegalities committed, whereupon the authorities concerned would look into the matter in accordance with law after providing due opportunity to the affected employees. But this can not be not a ground for this Court to interfere with the order admitting the teaching and non-teaching staff in the institution for salary grant.
Insofar as the alleged interference of the respondents in the management and other affairs of the institution of the petitioners, it is needless to observe that the matter is already seized by the Civil Court in tire pending suit where the institution has sought for a declaratory relief and the Director of Primary Education has been made party defendant No. 2 in the said suit O.S.No. 8054/1997. The said suit, as already referred above, has been instituted by the then Secretary and the President of the Karnataka State Education Federation, College of Education. Tumkur, It is for the petitioners, if they are competent to prosecute the said suit, to pursue the same. Therefore, this Court refrains from expressing any view with regard to the grievance made by the petitioners about the interference in the management and affairs of the institution by the official respondents. Suffice to observe that this contention of the petitioners in this regard is kept open to be agitated before the Civil Court.
With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
Learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file his memo of appearance within three weeks.