HEMAVATHI K.A. v. ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM

ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA …APPELLANT (BY SMT. VINITHA P.C. ADV.,) AND:

1. THE CHAIRMAN ROTARY MIDTOWN ACADEMY SCHOOL NO.11, KHB COLONY HUNSUR ROAD, BELAVADI POST HOOTAGALLI, MYSORE-570018.

2. THE PRINCIPAL ROTARY MID TOWN ACADEMY SCHOOL NO.11, KHB COLONY HUNSUR ROAD, BELAVADI POST HOOTAGALLI, MYSORE-570018. (BY SRI. VENKATESH R. BHAGAT, ADV., FOR R1 & R2) …RESPONDENTS - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:4282-DB W.A. No.546/2023 HC-KAR THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN W.P. No.55976/2017 AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.03.2023 AND ALLOW THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER AS PRAYED FOR IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) This intra-Court appeal is filed by the appellant under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, challenging the order dated 06.03.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.55976/2017 (S-DIS).

2. Smt.Vinitha P.C., learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in dismissing the writ petition without appreciating the material available on record in its proper perspective. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has relied on, but failed to rightly consider the decision of - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:4282-DB W.A. No.546/2023 HC-KAR this Court in the case of MANAGEMENT OF SRI JAGADGURU RENUKACHARYA EDUCATION SOCIETY Vs. R.B.UMA DEVI1, wherein it was clearly held by this Court that Section 94(1) of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), does not make any distinction between a permanent employee or a contract employee and hence, the above provision will be applicable to an employee irrespective of his status. It is further submitted that the appellant has worked for more than 7 years in the Institution and even for such period, the salary and other benefits are not completely paid. Hence, she seeks to allow the appeal.

3. Per contra, Sri.Venkatesh R Bhagat, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 supports the order of the learned Single Judge and submits that the learned Single Judge has rightly considered the applicability of Section 92 of the Act and has made a clear finding that the provision for dismissal/removal of an employee under the 1 2015 SCC Online Kar 8866 - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:4282-DB W.A. No.546/2023 HC-KAR Act will not apply to a temporary employee. Therefore, the appellant cannot seek an appeal under Section 94 of the Act. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.

4. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel respondents and meticulously perused the material available on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on both the sides.

5. The material on record indicates that the appellant joined the respondent No.1-Institution as a Kannada teacher on temporary basis without issuing any appointment order. On 19.04.2015, she was orally terminated from service by the respondent No.2. Being aggrieved by the oral termination, the appellant filed an appeal in E.A.T.No.11/2015 under Section 94 of the Act before the Court of the Principal District Judge and Educational Appellate Tribunal at Mysuru ((hereinafter - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:4282-DB W.A. No.546/2023 HC-KAR referred to as 'the Tribunal'). The Tribunal dismissed the said appeal by judgment dated 26.07.2017 on the ground that the appellant is appointed on a temporary basis and therefore, she cannot claim relief under Section 94 of the Act. The appellant assailed the order of the Tribunal before the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.55976/2017. The learned Single Judge, on considering the facts on hand and the law on point dismissed the petition by the impugned order dated 06.03.2023. The learned Single Judge held that Section 94 of the Act, provides the remedy for the dismissed employees of a private educational institution to approach the Tribunal in an appeal against the order passed by the Management against such an employee. However, Section 92 of the Act, which deals with dismissal, removal etc. of an employee, expressly excludes those employees appointed on temporary basis. The learned Single Judge, on a conjoint reading of Sections 92 and 94 of the Act, has held that the remedy of appeal is not applicable to the appellant, as it is an - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:4282-DB W.A. No.546/2023 HC-KAR admitted fact that the appellant was appointed only on temporary basis and no appointment order was issued. The said finding of the learned Single Judge is on the correct appreciation of the provisions of the Act, which does not call for any interference.

6. Insofar as the decision of this Court in the case MANAGEMENT OF SRI JAGADGURU RENUKARCHARYA EDUCATION SOCIETY, BENGALURU, referred supra is concerned, the same will not help the case of the appellant. It is noted that in the said case, the Court did not consider the scope of Section 92 of the Act, wherein there is an express distinction between the employees appointed on permanent basis and on temporary basis.

7. Therefore, we are of the view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is after rightly examining the facts and the law on point and the same does not call for any interference. - 7 - NC: 2026:KHC:4282-DB W.A. No.546/2023 HC-KAR

8. Insofar as the contention of the appellant with regard to non-payment of the entire salary and other arrears for the employed period is concerned, the same is beyond the scope of this appeal. However, the learned counsel for the respondent-Management submits that if the appellant submits a representation, they would consider the same and if any arrears are to be found, they would clear the same in accordance with law. His submission is placed on record.

9. For the aforementioned reasons, the appeal is disposed of. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6