S.98 Karnataka Education Act Applicable To Unaided Educational Institutions Run By Linguistic Minority Bodies: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has held that Section 98 of the Karnataka Education Act, which pertains to the Retrenchment of Employees, is applicable to unaided educational institutions run by the linguistic minority institution.

A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit added that the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 and the Dentists Act, 1948 are poles apart and could not be read into each other. 

"The provisions of 1948 Act in essence intend to regulate the standard of professional education whereas, the provisions of Sections 97 & 98 of the 1983 Act in substance intend to secure the service conditions of employees of Educational Institutions. Thus, they are poles apart. By no stretch of imagination, one can be read into the other."

The Court was dealing with an appeal filed by Rajarajeshwari Dental College and Hospital, challenging an order of the Single judge bench dated 24.01.2023, whereby the petition filed by Dr. Sanjay Murgod (son of former Justice A .B. Murgod), was favoured and the termination notice dated 11.06.2021 came to be voided coupled with a direction for reinstatement with immediate effect.

The Single Judge had also directed payment of back wages to the writ petitioner employee at 25% of the basic pay without emoluments within four weeks, for 12 months.

Section 98 outlines the procedures and requirements for employee retrenchment in educational institutions. It highlights the need for approval from the relevant authorities and emphasizes the protection of teaching staff in aided institutions, ensuring their appointment to similar positions elsewhere, subject to specific reservation rules.

The hospital relied on TMA Pai Foundation vs. State of Karnataka (2002) 8 SCC 481 to argue that Section 98 is not applicable to the unaided educational institution run by the linguistic minority institution. The permission taken from the Dental Council of India amounts to compliance with the requirement of Section 98(1). 

The bench noted the text of Section 98(1) of the 1983 Act, employs the term ‘any employee’; the word ‘Employee’ is defined under Section 2(15) to mean a person employed in an educational institution.

Then it said

“It obviously includes in its sweep any & every employee regardless of designation and nature of functions or the kind of educational institution, except those excluded under Section 2(14), which defines ‘Educational Institution’. This becomes clear from the text of sub-section 2 of Section 98 which employs the terms ‘teaching staff’ and ‘aided educational institution.”

Following this it observed that if the legislature intended to exclude unaided educational institutions, it would have in so many words said it, as it has done in Section 98(2).

Refusing to accept the contention that the provisions of the 1983 Act do not apply to educational institutions run by linguistic minorities.

The bench also said that the term ‘Educational Institution’ is defined in Section 2(14) as a ‘means and includes’ definition. It also ‘excludes’ definition and what is excluded is specifically stated; that a Minority Educational Institution as defined under Section 2(21) is not enlisted in the excluded category.

Further, the court opined that the legislature in its wisdom has taken special care to protect the tenure of employees of the private Educational Institutions by restricting the power of management to cut short the same casually.

It added,

“Section 98 secures the tenure by restricting management’s power to remove or retrench the employees. The underlining philosophy of these provisions is that an employee whose tenure is secured will be in a better position to discharge his duties efficiently and that is necessary in public interest. it hardly needs to be emphasised that the education and educational institutions play a pivotal role in nation building and therefore a legislature rightly feels the need for protecting tenure of service and its conditions of these employees. In a sense, these provisions aim at social security as well, like the Labour Laws do for the workmen.”

Pointing to the non-applicability of the Apex court judgment in the case of TMA Pai in the case at hand, the court said

“In the absence of a successful challenge and striking down of the provisions of Section 98 of the Act, their invocability cannot be hibernated on the ground that arguably they are repugnant to the observations of the Apex Court in some decisions.”

The court addressed the appellant-Institution's argument regarding the exclusivity of the Dental Council of India's regulations, emphasizing that the Dentists Act, 1948, primarily aimed to regulate professional education standards, while Sections 97 and 98 of the 1983 Act focused on securing the service conditions of educational institution employees.

Accordingly, it dismissed the appeal.

Appearance: Senior Advocate Dhananjaya V Joshi for Advocate Kavitha D for Appellants.

Senior Advocate V Srinivasa Raghavan for Advocate P Chinnappa for C/R-1.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 411

Case Title: Rajarajeshwari Dental College and Hospital And Dr Sanjay Murgod

Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 580 OF 2023

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment