Teachers Mould Fate Of A Nation And Play Pivotal Role In Nation Building: Karnataka High Court

A division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice Ramchandra D Huddar allowed the appeal filed by Vijayalakshmi H S and said “Absorption would secure favourable conditions of service to the teachers and that in turn would proliferate their interest in the discharge of their duties. It hardly needs to be stated that it is the teachers that mould the fate of a Nation and they play a pivotal role in Nation building.”

Further, the bench opined “During the World War – II, although the salaries of several segments of civil servants were downgraded, that of the teachers were not only left unaffected but came to be considerably enhanced by the British regime by virtue of Burnham Agreement. Therefore, while denying benefits of service to the community of teachers, the State and its authorities should be extra cautious.”

The appellant had approached the court challenging the Single Judge's order dated 24.02.2016 whereby, her petition was negatived. In the petition she had questioned the order dated 15.05.2013 whereby, her Revision Petition filed u/s 131 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, having been negatived by the Educational Appellate Authority.

The appellant argued that vacancy in the post in question arose on 31.05.1996 on one Mr.Shankareshwar Bhat having demitted office on attaining the age of superannuation and to that vacancy, the Appellant came to be appointed vide order dated 01.06.1996 by the competent body of the institution as Hindi lecturer on a part-time basis.

Moreover, the weekly teaching load comprises sixteen hours. The single Judge grossly erred in assuming that three conditions which Rule 3 of the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Collegiate Education) Rules, 2003 enacts having not been complied with, the absorption cannot be granted.

The government opposed the appeal contending that the post in question was not admitted to the Grant-in-Aid; when it is stated to have been admitted to the Grant, the subject of Home Science was yet to be institutionalised and that happened only in 1990.

Findings:

The bench referred to Rule -3: Absorption of part-time lecturer in Private Aided First Grade Colleges and said: “The text & context of Rule 3 of 2003 Rules leaves no manner of doubt that it has been promulgated with the intent to protect the tenure of long-serving lecturers in aided institutions so that the expertise gained by them would avail to the community of students and does not go waste.”

Further, it said “There is an error apparent on the face of the record, in construing rule of the kind as an iron jacket that does not have elbow joints. A Writ Court cannot act like a surgeon who would rather have the patient dead in accordance with rules of surgery than live contrary to, to say it metaphorically.”

Accepting the contention of the Appellant–lecturer that two of the three conditions namely, there being a sanctioned post and there existing a regular vacancy are satisfied needs to be straightaway accepted.

The court rejected the contention of the state government and said “The thrust of the Rule is there being a sanctioned post, there existing a regular vacancy & there being a candidate working in the post in question after being appointed thereto. Which subject came to be institutionalised when, would in our considered view pale into insignificance when we are not specifically shown that the Grant-in-Aid was subject specific. Even otherwise, such requirements cannot be construed as mandatory and we hold accordingly, no contra Ruling having been notified to us.”

Allowing the appeal the court directed that the order be complied with within an outer limit of three months failing which, stringent action may follow against the erring officials.

Appearance: Advocate Vijaya Kumar for Appellant

AGA C.N Mahadeswara for R1-R3.

Advocate Narayana Bhat for R4 & R5

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 270

Case Title: Vijayalakshmi H S AND Principal Secretary & Others

Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 1429 OF 2016