Karnataka High Court
WP/11387/2024 of K. GANGANNA Vs PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT on 9 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010227502024 NC: 2026:KHC:49179-DB WP No. 11387 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA WRIT PETITION NO. 11387 OF 2024 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN:
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
WRIT PETITION NO. 11387 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
K. GANGANNA,
S/O LATE KALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
SUBJECT INSPECTOR (SANSKRIT) (RETD.),
O/O THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF
PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
MYSORE DIVISION, MYSORE-570024.
CELL 9845764357.
(R/AT NO.343, 17TH B CROSS,
J P NAGAR , 6TH PHASE,
BANGALORE-560078, CELL: 8618057812)
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SIDDAIAH L., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT.,
DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION
(PRY. AND SECONDARY)
6TH FLOOR, M S BUILDING,
DR B R AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BANGALORE-560001.
2.
COMMISSIONER FOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION,
NEW PUBLIC OFFICES, K R CIRCLE
BANGALORE-560001.
Digitally signed
by AASEEFA
PARVEEN
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
3.
JOINT DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
MYSORE DIVISION, MYSORE-570024.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED
13.01.2023
(ANNEXURE-A)
PASSED
BY
HONBLE
TRIBUNAL IN A. No. 940/2022, AS ALSO THE ORDER DATED
05.02.2024 (ANNEXURE-B) PASSED BY THE SAID TRIBUNAL IN
A. No. 4149/2023 (ANNEXURE-F) AS ILLEGAL, IRRATIONAL, ARBITRARY AND UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND ETC.
THIS
PETITION,
COMING
ON
FOR
PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
and
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) The petitioner is before this Court questioning order dated 13.01.2023 (Annexure-A) as well as order dated 05.02.2024 in Application No.4149/2023 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (Annexure-B).
2. Heard learned counsel Sri.Siddaiah L., for petitioner and learned AGA Sri.Vikas Rojipura for respondents No.1 to 3.
HC-KAR
3. The petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation in the year 2011. The petitioner had approached the Tribunal seeking certain benefits in Application No.940/2022. The Tribunal considering the application passed the following order:
"The application is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the applicant with regard to the anomaly in the sanction of the kannada language increment, in accordance with rules, provided a fresh representation is submitted by the applicant within 60 days of the date of receipt of the said representation."
4. Thereafter, in terms of the above direction of the Tribunal, the petitioner was required to submit representation and the authorities were directed to pass orders in accordance with rules by considering the representation of the petitioner. The petitioner again approached the Tribunal in Application No.4149/2023
HC-KAR
contending that as directed in the earlier proceedings, his representation was not considered. The Tribunal on hearing both the parties at paragraph 13 has recorded as follows:
”In the impugned endorsement dated 04.07.2023 as at Annexure A3, it is clearly stated that no representation has been submitted within the said period of sixty days as directed by the Tribunal. In the circumstances, the applicant cannot be aggrieved by the endorsement when the applicant has not at all complied with the directions of this Tribunal and the endorsement clearly has noted the failure on the part of the applicant to file his representation. In the circumstance, there is no issue for consideration for the respondent based on the orders of this Tribunal in A940/2022 dated 13.01.2023 even with regard to the issue of effective date from which the grant of additional increment for having passed the Kannada Language examination has to be accorded."
HC-KAR
5. The Tribunal has categorically recorded that the petitioner has failed to make representation as directed. In the said circumstances, it was of the opinion that the petitioner cannot complain and cannot have any grievance. Thus, the Tribunal dismissed the application with costs of Rs.10,000/-. We do not find any error or illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal. However, the costs imposed by the Tribunal is waived taking note of the fact that the petitioner is a retired Government Servant.
6. With the above, writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE AP CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15