Teachers Above 50 Yrs Age Exempted From Transfer: Karnataka HC Upholds Tribunal Order Setting Aside Transfer Of Surplus Teachers
Mustafa Plumber
22 July 2024 9:11 AM GMT
The Karnataka High Court has observed that whenever a beneficial provision is incorporated in a statute, it has to be given effect in favour of the beneficiaries by authorities irrespective of whether the beneficiary has made an application in that regard or not.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice S G Pandit made the observation while dismissing petitions filed by the State Government questioning the order passed by Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT) setting aside the transfer order passed against Umadevi Hundekar (55) and Prabhavati Ronad (58), as they were found to be surplus teachers.
The bench said “The petitioners (teachers before the Tribunal), who are the female teachers, had crossed the age of 50 years and are entitled to for the benefit of Section 10(1)(vi) of the Karnataka State Civil Services (Regulation of Transfer of Teachers Act), 2020. They could not have been declared as excess and the impugned order of transfer could not have been issued.”
It added, “A statutory provision of the kind and nature as found in Section 10(1)(vi) of the Act becomes a right of the employee teacher to be governed and to be benefited thereby.”
The Commissioner, Department of Public Instructions had issued a Notification dated 26.12.2022 for rationalising the excess faculty working in the Government Primary Schools and High Schools by transferring such excess teachers after identifying them as excess under the provisions of the Karnataka State Civil Services (Regulation of Transfer of Teachers) Act, 2020 and the Karnataka State Civil Services (Regulation of Transfer of Teachers) Rules of 2020.
The teachers had filed their objections to the said notification relying on Rule 10(vi) and sought for exemption from the transfer as both the applicants had reached the age beyond 50 years. Following this the Deputy Director of Public Instructions prepared the provisional list and declared both the applicants surplus, and the impugned orders of transfer came to be passed.
Findings:
The bench noted that under Subsection (1) of Section 4 of the Act of 2020, rationalisation is provided for in respect of sanctioned posts and on the basis of the Pupil-Teacher ratio, which is fixed by the State Government from time to time.
However, under clause (vi) of Sub-section 1 of Section 10, it is provided that for teachers above the age of 50 years in the case of female teachers and 55 years in the case of male teachers would be exempted from the process of rationalisation.
Following which it said, “Consequently, while deciding the strength of the teachers in a particular school on the basis of Pupil-Teacher ratio, the provision of Section 10(1)(vi) of the Act of 2020 giving exemption to the teachers of beyond certain age as above, will have to be accounted for as they stand exempted from declaration as excess or surplus.”
Then it held “The tribunal was justified in holding that the rationalisation list should have been prepared after taking into account the provision and the exemption contained therein to exclude the teachers beyond the age from considering them as excess.”
Noting that Section 10(1)(vi) of the Act of 2020 is a beneficial provision and authorities are duty bound to give effect to and extend benefit thereof to the eligible teachers, the Court said that the statutory provision in its contemplation casts a positive duty on the respondents to give the benefit to the eligible teachers and not treat them as excess.
Accordingly, it dismissed the petition.
Appearance: Additional Advocate General J.M.Gangadhar for Petitioners
Advocate Suraj Mutnal for Respondents
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 326
Case Title: State of Karnataka & Others AND Umadevi Hundekar
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 102121 OF 2024 (S-KAT) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 102119 OF 2024
