H. Srinivasa vs The State of Karnataka

Ram Mohan Reddy, J.—These petitions though listed for preliminary hearing, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties are finally heard and disposed of by this order.

Petitioners are teachers appointed to serve in the Grace Public. School managed by Grace Education Trust (R), Bommanakatte, Bhadravathi taluk, Shimoga District, established during the year 1987-88 and extended recognition by order dated 3.2.1996 to commence a primary school with Kannada as the medium of instruction, Annexure-A. Petitioners claim to have been appointed against clear vacancies to sanctioned posts after following due process of recruitment and selection and reported to duty on 24.10.2008, 23.10.2008, 30.10.2008 and 30.10.2008, respectively. Their appointments were approved by the 4th respondent-Deputy Director, however without aid by order dated 4.9.2010 Annexure-B. The employer M/s. Grace Education Trust is said to have made a representation to the State to approve the appointment of the petitioners as teachers with aid in terms of the Grant-in-aid Code. The Education Department consisting of respondents are said to have conducted a spot inspection and submitted a detailed report recommending admission of the Institution to salary grant. According to the petitioners, a Committee headed by the DDPI, 4th respondent, a report when forwarded, the 2nd respondent recommended that the petitioners appointments be approved with aid by communication dated 2.8.2011 Annexure-C which when considered by the 1s respondent issued an Order dated 28.9.2012 Annexure-D approving the petitioners appointment with aid entitling the petitioners to receive salary from the 1st respondent.

Petitioners having eagerly awaited payment of salary eversince 28.10.2012, when not paid the salaries, 3rd respondent-Director of Public Instructions is said to have, by communication, dated 15.11.2002, addressed to the 4th respondent-Deputy Director, directed, withholding of salary Annexure-E. Sequentially the 4th respondent is said to have addressed a letter to the 5th respondent not to take any further steps pursuant to the approval of the appointment of the petitioners with aid, by order dated 28.9.2013 by forwarding a communication dated 24.12.2013 Annexure-F. Hence this petition.

Respondents have opposed the petition by filing statement of objections dated 9.10.2014 inter alia contending thus:

" that the employer of the petitioners, an educational institution had violated the condition of recognition by imparting education in English and not kannada language resulting in withdrawal of the recognition and there afterwards proceedings by which State Government imposed penalty and fresh recognition was granted on 28.5.2010 for the academic year 2008-09."

In addition it is submitted thus:

"The institution was then admitted to grant erroneously on 28.9.2012 by the Government. Realising this mistake 3rd respondent directed the 4th respondent not to release salary grant as per Annexure-E since the issue was pending consideration before the Government. The 4th Respondent in turn issued an endorsement to the 5th Respondent not to release the salary. As per condition Nos. 2 and 11 of the Government Order dated 28.09.2012 (Annexure-D) it was specifically informed that those institutions which had started during academic year 1.06.1987 to 1994-95 in Kannada medium were entitled for grant. Since the Grace Education Primary School was granted fresh permission from the Government on 3.2.1996 with effect from the academic year 1996-97 and that too without aid and since new fresh recognition was given on 28.05.2010 for the academic year 2008-09, question of giving salary to the Petitioners does not arise."

According to the respondents, the Government Order dated 28.9.2012 Annexure-D contained conditions one of which was that such of those institutions which started on 1.6.1982 and continued upto 94-95 imparting education in Kannada medium were alone entitled to grant in aid and since the Educational Institution in question was granted permission by the Government on 3.2.1996 for the academic year 1996-97, that too without aid and since fresh recognition was extended on 28.5.2010 for the academic year 2008-09, question of payment of salary to the petitioners did not arise.

In addition, the 5th respondent-Block Education Officer has filed an affidavit dated 14.10.2014 inter alia reiterating the averments set out in the statement of objections and in addition, states that though the educational institution when imposed with penalty for having imparted education in English as the medium of instruction paid Rs. 50,000/- as penalty, voluntarily, and filed an affidavit undertaking to follow the guidelines issued in the notification dated 12.4.2007 of voluntary scheme.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents having, admitted the fact that of notification dated 28.9.2012 admitting the institution to grant-in-aid having become final had no authority to sit in judgment over the said notification or disobey the directions contained in the said notification in the matter of payment of salaries. Learned counsel submits that the employer of the petitioner having paid the penalty and obtained a fresh recognition, with aid, the respondent-authorities were not justified in denying the benefits of grant-in-aid to the petitioners.

Per contra, Sri. Ariga, learned Govt. Advocate submits that though the State Government in its order dated 28.9.2012 permitted the institution to the grant-in-aid, nevertheless the same was conditioned, one of which is that the grant-in-aid is applicable only if the education institution imparted education in Kannada as the medium of institution from 1.6.1987 to 1994-95 and since the educational institution was found guilty of having violated the language policy by imparting education in English as the medium & instructions, petitioners are disentitled to the grant-in-aid. Learned Govt. Advocate further submits that the 3rd respondent-Director of Public Instructions having noticed the aforesaid infirmity recommended to the State Government to deny the payment of salaries by way of aid, and sequentially issued necessary instruction to all his subordinates not to make the payment. In addition, it is submitted that under the Voluntary Scheme dated 12.4.2007, the payment of penalty of Rs. 50,000/- by the petitioners'' employer i.e. Educational institution was to avoid further legal action against the said institution for violating the language policy and entitling the said institution to file an application for a fresh recognition. Learned counsel hastens to add that the payment of penalty was not a condition precedent to enable admission to grant-in-aid, in violation of the condition that the educational institution should have imparted education in Kannada as the medium of instruction from 1.6.1987 to 1994-95. Regard being had to the condition imposed in the order dated 28.9.2012, more appropriately that the petitioners employer violated the language policy, petitioners are disentitled to payment of salary.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and examined the order dated 28.9.2012 Annexure-D and since respondents 3, 4 and 5 are personally present, when enquired, as to the reasons for not complying with the Govt. Notification dt. 28.9.2012, in unison, it is submitted that the condition imposed in the Government Notification is not complied with by the petitioners'' employer and therefore, petitioners are disentitled to salary by way of aid and that it is open for the petitioners to recover the salary from the employer.

The question for decision making is, whether petitioners are entitled to salary by way of aid in view of the admission of the educational institution to Grant-in-aid Code ?

If regard is had to undisputed facts noticed supra, undoubtedly the education institution is guilty of imparting education contrary to the language policy from 1.6.1987 to 1994-95. In other words, imparted education in English medium instead of Kannada medium for standards 1 to 4 and following the Voluntary scheme floated by the State Government in the proceeding dt. 12.4.2007, offering all Educational institutions who violated the language policy to pay penalty of Rs. 50,000/- in Taluka headquarters, Rs. 1,00,000/- in city and Rs. 25,000/- in village limits, in order to deter the State Government from taking any further action under the Karnataka Education Act against the said institutions. The Grace Education Trust, employer of the petitioners having conceded to the fact of imparting education in violation of language policy made payment of Rs. 50,000/- towards penalty in terms of the said scheme and there afterwards made an application Dt. 28.06.2012 for fresh recognition, which the State Government accepted and by order dated 28.9.2012 accorded fresh recognition and admitted the institution to grant-in-aid subject to the condition that the grant would be available only if the educational institution imparted education in Kannada as a medium of instruction from 1.6.1987 to 1994-95.

Admittedly petitioners employer did not imparted education in kannada as the medium of instruction for the classes 1 to 4 during the said period since it had voluntarily paid the penalty. It is a matter of fact that the Educational Institution did not call in question the conditions imposed in the Order dated 28.9.2012 admitting its institution to grant-in-aid. The employer of the petitioners is not a party to this proceeding. In that view of the matter, there can be no doubt that Grace Education Trust which manages the school known as Grace Public School, in which the petitioners are employed as teachers, though the institution is admitted to aid, is disentitled to salary grant.

It is no doubt true that the State Government did issue the notification dated 28.9.2012 admitting grace Education Trust to grant-in-aid but at the same time imposed a condition that the grant is unavailable if there was violation of the language policy during from 01.06.1987 to 1994-95 period. The order of the State Government admitting the educational institution to aid and conditioning it by declining aid for non compliance with the language policy is virtually extending aid in one hand and withdrawing by another.

It appears to me that the Officers of the Education Department have, in a lackadaisical manner and without accountability or responsibility, recommended extending grant-in-aid to the institution in question despite the fact of voluntary payment of penalty for having violated the language policy calling for remedial measures. Petitioners working as teachers having noticed the order dt. 28.9.2012 extending grant-in-aid were of the fond hope that the State would make payment of salaries, unfortunately for them the condition imposed in the order dt. 28.9.2012 is a fetter in the matter of payment of salaries as aid by the State Government.

The Apex Court in Haryana State Adhyapak Sangh and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others, opined that the teachers of aided schools must be paid salaries and dearness allowance as paid to teachers in government schools. If that is so, petitioners are entitled to recover the said salary from their employer M/s. Grace Education Trust.

Reserving such liberty to the petitioners, these petitions are accordingly rejected.