NATIONAL EDUCATION SOCIETY BASAVANAGUDI BANGALORE - 560004, REPRESENTED BY ITS HON. SECRETARY AND THE PRINCIPAL A.E.S. NATIONAL COLLEGE GOWRIBIDANUR KOLAR DISTRICT Vs. SRI K N VENAKASUBRAMANYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is the case of the 1st respondent that he was appointed on 6.5.1987 by appellant no. 2 herein on full time basis to a permanent post but he was paid salary of Rs. 300/ - per month initially and it was raised later to Rs. 400 -475. Though, he was in continuous and uninterrupted service, the respondents were deliberately issuing letters to see that there was break of service by one day. Appellant no. 2 was promising him that he would recommend for providing regular pay scale after grant -in -aid was received from the Government. It is further contended by the 1st respondent that on 19.4.1994 when he went to duty, appellant no. 2 herein refused to allow him to discharge his duties on the ground that his services were terminated as per the instructions of appellant no. 1 herein. There was no written communication in that regard as such, he filed W.P. 4267/1997 on the file of this Court challenging the said termination and in the writ petition vide order dated 2.7.1998, a direction was given to him/1st respondent herein to invoke the remedy under the provisions of the Karnataka Education Act, 1993 consequent of which he preferred MA (EAT) 4/1998 on the file of the Principal District Judge and EAT, Kolar seeking redressal of his grievances. The said appeal was allowed in part. The appellants herein were directed to make recommendations to the Government of Karnataka for sanction of post and for promotion to appoint the 1st respondent on such recommendation made by the respondent. It is for the concerned authorities to consider the said recommendation for regularisation or absorption of appellant in the college in view of his long uninterrupted service in the college. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant herein preferred W.P. 7202/2004 which was dismissed with the observations that the petitioner/appellants herein not being in a position to meet the contentions of the respondent, has failed to file its rejoinder and on the basis of the rival contentions, the contentions urged by the 1st respondent was upheld. Aggrieved by the said dismissal of Writ Petition, the appellants have preferred the above appeal contending interalia amongst other contentions that the delay in preferring the appeal before the Education Appellate Tribunal was not entitled to be condoned.

(2.) THE real issues involved in the appeal are not considered. The tribunal erred in finally disposing of the appeal without calling upon the management to establish its case. Further, it is contended that the rulings relied upon by the respondent herein have no bearing with the issues involved in the appeal. It is specifically contended that the contentions of the appellant that their existed no vacancy what -so -ever for accommodating the respondent, has not gone into while disposing of the appeal as well as the writ petition. Likewise, it is further contended that the Court below failed to appreciate that the principal of the college was not the appointing authority and even, if assuming that the respondent was appointed temporarily by the principal, the same would in no way burden the principal of the college for regularising his services etc., has sought allowing of the appeal.

(3.) EVEN according to the 1st respondent herein, he was appointed by the 2nd appellant herein viz., the principal and not by appellant no. 1. Likewise, it is further seen that admittedly, the 1st respondent was prevented from carrying out the work on 19.4.1994 but he preferred W.P. 4267/1997 only in the year 1997 after a lapse of nearly 3 years and the said W.P. 4267/1997 was dismissed by order dated 2.7.1998 observing that other efficacious, effective and alternative remedy is available' and if so advised, the 1st respondent herein may avail his statutory remedy by way of filing appeal application under the M.A. (EAT) 4/1998 within 6 weeks from the date of such order and in the event of he filing such appeal, the same may be disposed of within 3 months from the date of filing thereon and thus, it is seen that with regard to question of limitation, no direction is given.