STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. N G SHIVALINGALPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these writ appeals, there are applications for condonation of delay of varying period of several months. We have noticed hereinafter that a Special Leave Petition had been preferred by the appellants against the Judgment delivered in State of Karnataka Vs. H. Peter (Writ Appeal No.291/2007).. which came to be dismissed by their Lordships on the ground of delay. Although this very course commends adoption by us in these writ appeals, we think it proper not to charter that course for the reason that their Lordships have issued notice in some other Special Leave Petitions. Since the entire issue is before their Lordships, we think it expedient to condone the delay. Accordingly, the delay in filing the present appeals is condoned.

(2.) THESE appeals have been filed on behalf of the State of Karnataka through its Secretary, Department of Primary Education Bangalore, against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 26.07.2010 passed in Writ Petition Nos.21056-.21058/2010.

(3.) MR. B. Veerappa learned Additional Government Advocate has sought to rely on another Division Bench. Judgment that was passed on 20.09.2011 in Writ Appeal. No.476 of 2007. In that case, the learned Single Judge had noted the decision in State of Karnataka Vs. B.R. Chowdappa. (W.P.No. 1867/1995) and had granted an identical relief. The earlier decision in Principal Secretary to the Government of Karnataka (Higher Education) Vs. Nage Gowda dated 03.11.2009 was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench. This decision has been assailed in SLA (Civil) Nos. 22 176-22186/2010 but the impugned Judgment(s) has not been stayed. The later decision in W.A.No.476 of 2007, would therefore, have to be treated as per incuriam had it reached a conclusion contrary to that of an earlier Judgment. However, on a careful reading of a later Judgment, all that was argued and therefore decided by the Division Bench was that since the petitioners therein had made a prayer only for disposal of their representations, that prayer alone had been granted in the first instance. This is all that the Division Bench ordered. Therefore, it cannot be contended that there is a conflict in the opinion rendered by coordinate Benches.