AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Subhash B. Adi
All these petitioners have called in question the endorsement dated 31.12.2011 issued by respondent No. 4 produced at Annexure ''W''. The case of the petitioners is that, respondent No. 6 Management started an institution called "Sri Krishna Vidya Kendra Kannada Medium Primary School" at Nelamangala, Bangalore Rural District. Since these petitioners had requisite qualification, they were all appointed by respondent No. 6 - Management. Respondent No. 5 recognized the said School by order dated 11.10.1999. The strength of the students was 147 during the academic year 2004-05. However, respondent No. 6 - Management claimed that the entire Institution was gifted to the Government on 01.03.2005. These petitioners came to know about the said transfer when it was published in a local daily news paper and as such, they approached the management as against the transfer of the Institution.
Respondent No. 5 - authority orally informed the petitioners that they will not be allowed to work after 08.04.2005 and an undertaking was also sought from the petitioners to the effect that they were voluntarily leaving the Institution and there were no dues from respondent No. 6 Management. In these circumstances, there was a threat of removal of the petitioners from service and they filed a writ petition in W. P. No. 12426/2005. Initially, this Court granted an interim order on 15.04.2005 directing the respondent - State not to make any permanent appointments -to the posts as against which the petitioners were working in the Institution. However, this Court by order dated 13.09.2005, disposed of the writ petition directing the respondents to take suitable action to examine the claim of each of the petitioners regarding their employment in the erstwhile management and if it was found that they were engaged by the management: of the School as prior to its taking over, they shall be continued in service on the same terms and conditions that governed their services under the erstwhile management.
Against the said order of the learned single Judge, the State filed appeal in W. A. No. 96/2006 and connected appeals and a Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 16.08.2011, disposed of the appeals with a direction to the appellants to consider the representation of the private respondents in the light of the observations made therein.
Petitioners gave a representation on 17.09.2011, which was received by respondent No. 4 on 19.09.2011. Despite the observations made by the Division Bench, the services of these petitioners were not regularized by the state in the Institution taken over by it and as such, the petitioners being aggrieved by the endorsement dated 31.12.2011 produced at Annexure ''W'', have once again filed these writ petitions
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, the State has taken over not only the building, but the students and the entire management of the Institution. Once the entire management is taken over by the State, it means and includes the Teaching staff also. However, the interest of Teachers was not protected. In turn, they have been discontinued from service. He relied on the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in W. A. No. 96/2006 and connected appeals and submitted that, apart from building and students, the transfer made by respondent No. 6 to State includes the management, which in turn, includes staff.
On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader submitted that respondent No. 6 was running a private School. It was neither admitted to the grant-in-aid nor it was a Government School. Since respondent No. 6 intended to transfer the building by way of gift, the Government took the building. It is purely a transaction of transfer of building. However, interest of the students is protected. There is nothing in the agreement with regard to taking over of teaching and non-teaching staff. Even otherwise, the same is not permissible. He also contended that, once a private School is transferred to the Government, it is deemed to have been closed and any Teacher, affected by such a closure, has remedy under the provisions of Section 98 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''). He also relied on the observations made by Division Bench of this Court and submitted that, the Division Bench has categorically made an observation that, the School was run by private management prior to its transfer to the Government and after the transfer, while making recruitment to the vacancies, the State shall consider the interest of the Teachers because they were all working in the erstwhile management.
It is not in dispute that, the School building and students have been transferred by respondent No. 6 to the State. Whether such transfer is permissible under the Act or not, the fact remains that the Government is running the School. Division Bench of this Court, while considering the said aspect has observed as under:
When the entire Management including the property of the private management is transferred to the Department of Education by way of gift, one cannot come out with a statement that the liability, if any, on the said institution will be excluded in the transfer of assets. However, once it becomes the institution run by the Department, the procedure especially for the recruitment of the teachers in the said institution has to be in accordance with the Recruitment Procedure contemplated in the Government Schools. However, one cannot ignore the fact of the private respondents herein working for the institution for quite some time who were regularly employed by the private management having found them with the required qualification at the initial stage of their appointments. Admittedly, the Department of Education has schools spread all over the State of Karnataka from 1st Std to 7th Std in different parts of the State. That being the situation, there will be availability and opportunity for appointing these four respondents in such of the institutions where their services would be of help.
The above observations make it clear that once an Institution is transferred to the Government, it becomes a Government Institution and all recruitments have to be made in consonance with the Cadre and Recruitment Rules. However, Division Bench of this Court has observed that, since these petitioners were also working in the Institution prior to its transfer to the Government and if they are qualified, the State, which is running several Government Schools across the State, shall consider their case for appointment in such of the Institutions, where their services are necessary.
The said observation does not make it mandatory for the State to regularize the services of these petitioners in the Institution nor the petitioners can claim for absorption as a matter of right. The Government can only take into consideration the past service rendered by the petitioners and if there are vacancies, their case also can be considered in terms of the Cadre and Recruitment Rules. Beyond this, the said observation cannot be read otherwise. Hence, I find that, no direction could be issued for regularization of the services of the petitioners. However, respondent No. 1 - State shall consider the applications of the petitioners for recruitment in any of the Government Schools in the light of the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in the order dated 16.08.2011 in W. A. No. 96/2006 and connected appeals.
Accordingly, the writ petitions stand disposed of.