SRI MANJAPPA HALASABAL v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

(BY SRI. SRIKANTH M. P., ADV.) AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION AND LITERACY, M.S.BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU- 560 001 REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU- 560 001, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, ROOM NO.126, ZILLA ADALIT BHAVAN, BEERSANDRA VILLAGE, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI - 562 110. MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:738 WP No. 26350 of 2024

BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 114.

SRI RANGANATHA RURAL EDUCATION SOCIETY (R), KALKUNTE, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-560 117, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT / SECRETARY.

SRI. RANGANATHA HIGH SCHOOL, KALKUNTE VILLAGE AND POST, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-560 117, REP. BY ITS IN-CHARGE HEAD MASTER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NAVEEN CHANDRASHEKHAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R4 SRI V.R. SARATHY, ADV. FOR R5 & R6) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED

14.06.2024 OF THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-T AND FURTHER DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CHANGE THE ENQUIRY OFFICER AND THE DEPARTMENTAL NOMINEE SO APPOINTED UNDER RULE 21(2) OF THE 1999 RULES TO BE CHANGED AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT ORAL ORDER Petitioner, Assistant Master working in the sixth respondent-School is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:738 WP No. 26350 of 2024

(a) Direct the respondents to consider the representation dated 14.06.2024 of the petitioner vide Anenxure-T and further direct the respondents to change the Enquiry Officer and the Departmental Nominee so appointed under Rule 21(2) of 1999 Rules to be changed. (b) Further direct holding of the enquiry against the petitioner from the beginning as illegality had crept in with regard to the proceedings against the petitioner from its inception.

2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.M.P.Srikanth for petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate Sri. Naveen Chandrashekhar for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and learned counsel Sri.V.R.Sarathy for respondent Nos.5 and 6. Perused the writ petition papers.

3. The limited prayer of the petitioner is to consider his representation dated 14.06.2024 and further to change the Enquiry Officer and the Departmental Nominee so appointed, so also to hold enquiry afresh. The - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:738 WP No. 26350 of 2024 representation dated 14.06.2024 is placed on record as Annexure-T. A perusal of the said representation also indicates the same request.

4. Learned counsel Sri.M.P.Srikanth for petitioner contended that every order of the management requires approval and confirmation by the competent authority and in that regard, he places reliance on the decision of a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court case of SRI.B.K.GOPALA KRISHNA V/S. THE MANAGING COMMITTEE, BHARATHIYA SAMSKRITHI VIDYAPEETHA AND OTHERS1. There is no dispute with regard to principles laid down in the above decision.

5. Learned counsel Sri.V.R.Sarathy on the other hand submitted that the enquiry is completed and the Enquiry Officer has submitted his report on 18.09.2024. The petitioner is also issued with second show cause notice on 04.10.2024 and thereafter he also submits that 1 ILR 2009 KAR 3409 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:738 WP No. 26350 of 2024 order of termination is passed by the respondent- Management. But, the said termination order is not approved by the Department, but it is sent back for certain clarification/compliance.

6. In the light of the above facts brought on record, I am of the considered opinion that the prayer of the petitioner in the writ petition would no more survive for consideration, wherein the petitioner has sought for consideration of his representation and changing of Enquiry Officer. When the Enquiry Officer has submitted his report on 18.09.2024, the question of changing the Enquiry Officer at this length of time would not arise.

This Court would not go into the correctness or otherwise of the enquiry or the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer at this stage. If the petitioner has any grievance, is open the petitioner to make representation to the Management or to the appropriate Authority. I am sure, the petitioner makes - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:738 WP No. 26350 of 2024 representation, the respondent-Authorities or Management would consider the same in accordance with law.

With the above, writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE NC CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40