DHARWAD BENCH v. SRI. A.S.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4)
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
- Karnataka Education Act, 1983
Judgment
SRI. HANAMANTH S/O. BASAPPA KUMBAR AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: PRINCIPAL, R/O. BEHIND URDU SCHOOL, VIJAYANAGAR, DANDELI, TQ: DANDELI, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT-581325. (BY SRI. HAREESHA S.NAYAK, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (PRE-UNIVERSITY EDUCATION), VIDHANA SOUDHA/M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PRE-UNIVERISTY EDUCATION, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT, KARWAR 581 301. MANJANNA E MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH +0530 …PETITIONER
THE PRESIDENT DANDELI WELFARE SOCIETY, DANDELI, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT-581 325.
THE SECRETARY DANDELI WELFARE SOCIETY, DANDELI, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT-581 325. (BY SMT. NANDINI B.SOMAPUR, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. A.S.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4) …RESPONDENTS - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:979 WP No. 110077 of 2025 HC-KAR THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED SUSPENSION ORDER/LETTER BEARING REF.NO.DA.WE.SO.DA/41/2025-26 DATED 04.12.2025, ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT AND THE SUSPENSION ORDER DATED 03.12.2025 REFEREED TO THEREIN VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND DECLARE THAT THE IMPUGNED SUSPENSION ORDER IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY, AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs.
a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the impugned suspension order/letter bearing Ref. No.DA.WE.SO.DA/41/2025-26 04.12.2025 issued by the 4th respondent and the suspension order dated 03.12.2025 refereed to therein vide Annexure-A and declare that the impugned suspension order is illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional in the interest of justice. b) Consequentially direct the respondents to reinstate to service with continuity of service and all consequential benefits in the interest of justice. the petitioner - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:979 WP No. 110077 of 2025 HC-KAR c) Grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2, at the outset, raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition, contending that the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 (for short ‘the Act’) provides an efficacious alternative statutory remedy. It is submitted that under Section 94 (5) read with Section 92(3)(a) of the Act, an appeal lies against an order of suspension, and therefore the petitioner is required to avail the said remedy.
3. Section 93(3)(a) of the Act empowers the managing committee to place a teacher or other employee under suspension. Sub-Section (5) of Section 94 of the Act specifically provides that, in respect of an order imposing a penalty other than those specified in Sub-Section (1) of Section 92 of the Act, an appeal shall lie to the competent authority. - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:979 WP No. 110077 of 2025 HC-KAR
Operative part
4. In view of the statutory scheme providing a specific and efficacious alternative remedy, this Court is of the opinion, the writ petition is not maintainable and accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent authority in accordance with law.
The time spend before this Court in prosecuting the writ proceeding shall be available to be urged before the competent authority. Sd/- JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA AM/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 101
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227; Karnataka Education Act, 1983.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.