T S SUBBANNA SARVAJANIKA EDUCATION TRUST(R) v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case Details
Acts & Sections
Summary
A structured summary for this judgment hasn’t been prepared yet. The full text is below.
Precedent status
No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.
Original judgment text
6. SRI.K.R.VISHWANATH, S/O LATE RAMACHANDREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, ASSISTANT TEACHER, R/AT KANUGANAHALLI, TIPPUR POST, K.R. NAGAR TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 602.
7. SRI.SHIVAKUMAR K.M S/O MARILINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, ASSISTANT TEACHER, R/AT KAGALAWADI, CHAMARAJANAGAR POST, CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK DIST. PIN 571 117.
8. SRI S. MANJEGOWDA, S/O PATEL SIDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, ASSISTANT TEACHER, R/AT KETHANAHALLI VILLAGE, H.D.KOTE POST AND TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT 570 026.
9. SRI K.C.PRADEEP KUMAR, S/O CHINNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, ASSISTANT TEACHER, R/AT KETHUPURA, SOSALE HOBLI, T.N.PURA TALUK, - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:4881-DB WA No. 492 of 2025 HC-KAR MYSURU DISTRICT 571 602.
10. SRI K.M.JAGADEESH, S/O MUDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, ASSISTANT TEACHER, R/AT KARAKALAMADAHALLI, VADDAGERE POST, GUNDLUPET TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT 571 123.
11. SMT.SINDHU P., D/O LATE PAPANNA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, ASSISTANT TEACHER, R/AT POORIGALI, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT 571 463.
12. SRI.SIDDARAJU R, S/O RACHALAH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, ASSISTANT TEACHER, R/AT KELLUPUR, HUR POST, NANJANGUD TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT 571 315.
13. SRI.RACHANAYAK, S/O RACHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, ASSISTANT TEACHER, R/AT HALEBEEDI, TALAKADU, T.N.PURA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT 571 122.
14. SMT. RUKMINIAMMA, W/O SHIVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, ASSISTANT TEACHER, R/AT HOUSING BOARD COLONY, CHAMARAJANAGAR 571 313. - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:4881-DB WA No. 492 of 2025 HC-KAR
15. SRI.NANDEESH NAYAK K.O., S/O OBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, ASSISTANT TEACHER, R/AT MYSARESATTI, RAYAPUR POST, MOLAKALMUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 577 535.
16. SRI. MANJUNATHA K A S/O ANNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, ASSISTANT TEACHER, R/AT KALKERE VILLAGE, PERIYAPATNA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT 571 122.
17. SMT.MANJULA R., D/O LATE RAMASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, ASSISTANT TEACHER, R/AT JODI HARIHARAPURA, (SALUNDI), BILIGERI HOBLI, NANJANGUD TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT 571 602. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MOHAMMAD JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R1-R5; SRI. RAMESHB.ANEPPANAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R6-R9, R11-R13, R16 & R17) THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20.02.2025 MADE IN WP No. 35747/2019, PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HONBLE COURT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:4881-DB WA No. 492 of 2025 HC-KAR THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) The present intra Court appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 20.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.35747/2019.
2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the writ Court for the sake of convenience.
3. Respondent No.1 a Government-aided educational institution which imparts education upto 10th standard. The petitioners, who possessed the qualification of M.A. B.Ed., were employed by the respondent No.1-Institution for teaching students during the period 2006-2014 on a remuneration of Rs.500/- per month. Before their services were dispensed with, they had already rendered 9 to 10 years of service, for which they were paid a negligible remuneration of - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:4881-DB WA No. 492 of 2025 HC-KAR Rs.500/- per month. This meager remuneration is nothing but a shame for the person holding the qualification of M.A. B.Ed., as remuneration for teaching the students. The petitioners, therefore, filed the aforesaid writ petition claiming salary of the grade as paid by the Government in the Government-aided institutions.
4. The learned Single Judge, considering provisions of Article 23 of the Constitution of India, held that it was nothing but begar which was taken from the petitioners by the respondent No.1-Institution and accordingly, directed the respondent No.1-Institution to pay salary to the petitioners as admissible to regularly engaged employees holding the post for which the petitioners were employed.
5. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were not regularly selected candidates. However, the payment of Rs.500/- per month is nothing but beggar which is in violation of Article 23 of the Constitution of India.
6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-Institution submits that respondent No.1-Institution is a private educational institution wherein funds are received - 7 - NC: 2026:KHC:4881-DB WA No. 492 of 2025 HC-KAR as grant-in-aid from the Government. It is contended that the institution does not generate sufficient funds to make payment of regular salary to the teachers employed outside the grant-in- aid scheme and therefore, the direction to pay regular salary to the petitioners is onerous and beyond the financial capacity of the respondent No.1-Institution. He further submits that the petitioners cannot be equated with the regularly selected candidates who have undergone the prescribed selection process and appointment procedure. Lastly, it is submitted that at the relevant time, the Government had issued a Government Order dated 03.08.2012 prescribing honorarium of Rs.6,000/- for guest teachers and which ought to have been taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order.
7. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State submits that the petitioners were not entitled to regular salary as they were not appointed through a regular selection process. He, however, submits that the petitioners ought to be paid atleast the Honorarium as fixed by the Government vide Government Order dated 03.08.2012. - 8 - NC: 2026:KHC:4881-DB WA No. 492 of 2025 HC-KAR
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner ought to be paid for the years of work.
9. Considering the aforesaid stand of the respondents and the affidavit filed by the petitioners as well as the Government Order dated 03.08.2012, we deem it appropriate that the payment of Rs.6,000/- per month to each of the petitioners for the period during which they worked in the appellant-Institution would meet the ends of justice.
10. Thus, we dispose of this writ appeal with a direction to the appellant-Institution to pay a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month to each of the petitioners for the period during which they were employed by the appellant-Institution. The remuneration already paid to the petitioners shall be deducted and the balance amount shall be paid to them within a period of four months from today.
11. With the aforesaid modification in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, the writ appeal stands disposed of. - 9 - NC: 2026:KHC:4881-DB WA No. 492 of 2025 HC-KAR
12. In view of disposal of the writ appeal, all pending applications stands closed. KUMAR SINGH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA (D K SINGH) JUDGE VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1