The Director of PreUniversity Education, Palace Road, Bangalore. v. Sri. Yekanagouda Sb Basalingappagouda

Sri. Yekanagouda Sb Basalingappagouda, Major, 0cc: Principal, B,T.Patil Composite P U College, Masur, Tq.Hirekerur, Dist: Dharwad.

2.. Sarvagna Vidya Pe.etha Masur, I i .i i u T) sr f)jt ‘ Petitioners

4. The President, Sarvagna Vidva Peetha, Masur, Tc1: Hirekerur, Dist: Dhanvad. The Secretary, Sarvagna Vidya Peetha, Masur, Tq: Hirekerur. Dist: Dharwacl. (By Sri.M.S.Haravi. Adv. for Ri: M/s M.Rama Bhat & ShrLH.RSreepada Assts, for R2R4) Respondents This w.p. is filed praying to setaside the order dated 10.12.2003 passed by the Educational Appellate Tribunal in Miscellaneous Appeal [Eati No. 8/2001; in so far as directing the petitioners to pay the arrears of salar to the RI vide Anx A. This writ petition eomin on for final hearing this day. the Court made the following: ORDER These netinoners hein a&tgrievd b the inipuned order d.a.teci 10/12/2003, pa.sed in Miscellaneous Appeal (EATJ No8/200 1 on the file of the FZducati.onai Appellate Tribu.nal, Haven. in sofaras directin the peritioners 10 pav the arrears 4 / 3 of salary to the first respondent as per Annexure-A. have presented this writ petition.

2. BrIef fac of the case are that the first respondent was appointed as lecturer In B.T.Patll Composite Pre University College, Masur. on 28/6/198 1. HIs appointment was approved by the Joint Director, Public Instructions, Belgaum, on 27/5/1982. Subsequently, he was working as incharge Principal with effect from 28/5/1995. Thereafter, promoted as a regular Principal with effect from 28/9/1986. The respondents 2 and 3 by their order dated 27/5/1985 kept the first respondent under suspension for some of the Illegalities committed by the first respondent. The articles of charges was served on the first respondent. The first respondent Inturn denied the charges leveled against him. Therefore the respondents 2 and 3 have appointed Enquiry Officer to inquire into the matter and submit the report. The Enquiry Officer after conducting the Inquiry submitted a report to the Governing Council on 30/11/1995. The same , —-.—— -S / 4 was placed before the special meeting held on 1/11/1995 and respondents 2 and 3 have taken a decision to dismiss the first respondent from service and passed the order dismissing the first respondent on 1/11/1995 produced at Annexure-B.

3. The first respondent being aggrieved by the order dated 1/11/1995 filed an appeal before the Educational Appellate Tribunal, Dharwar. The same was numbered as 1/96. In view of constitution of Educational Appellate Tribunal at Haved, the said appeal was transferred to Haven and renumbered as 8/200 1. The Educational Appellate Tribunal after considering the matter In detail, by its order dated 10/12/2003 was pleased to allow the appeal and set aside the order dated 1/11/1995 passed by the respondents 1 to 5 in the appeal i.e. including the petitioners herein to pay the arrears of salary withIn 90 days from the date of order. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Educational Appellate Tribunal, Haven, directing the petitioner to pay the 5 arrears of salaty, the petitioners have presented this writ petition

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently submitted that under the grant in aid agreement the management cannot terminate the employees without prior approval of the State Government, In the instant case, the Deputy Director of Pre University Education appeared as R.W I in appeal filed by the first respondent has specifically deposed that respondents 2 and 3 have not obtained prior approval petitioners by their order dated 15/12/1995 and 11/3/1996 directed the respondents 2 and 3 to reintafe he first respondent for dismissal of first respondent In fact, into sen ice In epeated dirc tions pite of cspondent I tnd 3 ha e not r instited h first spondent naut d pc nd a I d I ,a ng llegali i s C ponner t r r I I ii I a p me t p 6 looked by the Educational Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, order Impugned passed In sofaras It relates to directing the petitioners to pay salary to the respondents from suspension period till the date of reinstatement cannot be sustained and Is liable to be set aside.

5. Further, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners submits that the Appellate Thbunal has committed a grave error much less material Irregularity, In Issuing direction to the petitioners herein to pay arrears of salary of the respondent No.1 from the date of suspension till the date of reinstatement and cancellation of the dismissing of the first respondent from service, is not sustainable for the reason that they have not taken prior approval as per the relevant Rules of grant-in-aid. Without taking prior permission they have suspended and passed an order of dismissal. Such order cannot be sustained and accordingly, they issued direction on 15/12/1995 and 11/3/ 1996 to the management respondent Nos.2 and 3 to reinstate the first I’ —---———° 7 respondent into service. When there Is no default on the part of the petitioners herein they are not liable to pay arrears of salary. Therefore he submitted. the order Impugned passed by the Appellate Tribunal is liable to be set aside at threshold.

6. After careful consideration of the submission made by the learned Government Pleader appearing for petitioners and perusal of the order impugned, it is manifest on the face of the said order that, the Tribunal has committed material ifiegality in proceeding to pass an order, contrary to the guidelines relating to grant in aid. The Institution where the first respondent Is working under respondents 2 and 3 Is an aided Institution. If they want to Initiate any proceedings against the employee for suspension or promotion, services or dismissal they are bound to take prior permission from the petitioners. In the Instant case, it Is not the case of the respondents 2 and 3 that they have obtained prior permission before taking action and dismissing the first respondent from senrlce. One more aspect to be borne In mind Is that, it Is the 8 case of the petitioner that petitioners have passed orders dated 15R2/1995 and I 1/3/1996 directing the respondents 2 and 3 to reinstate the first respondent into senicc. In spite of repeated directions, respondents 2 and 3 have not reinstated the first respondent into service. On the contrary, they have held ade novo enquiry regarding illegalities committed by the first respondent. Hence, respondents 2 and 3 are solely responsible for the payment of arrears of sala. This aspect of the matter is completely over looked by the Education Appellate Tribunal. No valid reasons are assigned for holding that the petitioners herein arc liable to pay the arrears of salary to the first respondent Educational Appellate Tribunal Therefore I am of the considered view that the order passed by th Tribunal sofaras it relat s to issiung direction I thc petit iom Cs a pay arrear of ,alaiy of thc first riden e inn t he ustamed n I s liable a Ii Sc asid it thnshokl. Pheictori’, iinhoat going into further merits and demerits of th east . in ih iiht of tI faci and c1rrurnfanrt nt the ise reft ned ahov tin’ instant rctii r1 C) is allowed in part. Impugned order dated 10/12/2003, passed by the Educational Appellate Tribunal. Haven, Miscellaneous Appeal (EAT) No8/2O0I in sofaras directing the petitioners to pay the arrears of salary to the first respondent is hereby set aside, reserving liberty to the tirst respondent the arrears of salary from the to recover respondents 2 and 3 in accordance with law, Sd/ JUDGE Vmb/Sbs