DHARMARATHNAKARA RAI BAHADDUR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions are filed by managements of private aided schools and some of the teachers of the private aided schools, calling in question The Karnataka Educational Institutions (Recruitment And Terms And Conditions of Service Of Employees In Private Aided Primary and Secondary Educational Institutions) Rules, 1999; the vires of Section 98(2) and (3) of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 and the Government Circular dated 03.02.2000.

(2.) Since the issues raised are common, these writ petitions were clubbed and heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

(3.) In exercise of power conferred by Sections 87 to 101 read with Section 15 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, for short) the Government of Karnataka made The Karnataka Educational Institutions (Recruitment And Terms And Conditions of Service Of Employees In Private Aided Primary and Secondary Educational Institutions) Rules, 1999; (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1999', for short) making provision for identifying excess teachers in the aided schools and transferring such excess teachers to other aided schools. It is basically contended on behalf of the petitioners that in terms of Section 46(1) (b) and (c) of the Act, power is vested in the Managing Committee of an aided institution to appoint teachers and other employees of the private educational institution and to take disciplinary action against teachers and other employees, except the head of the institution. It is contended that the powers of the Managing Committee of private educational institutions in the matter of appointment of teachers have been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of T. M. A. Pai Foundation and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others, reported in (2002) 8 SCC 481, Brahmo Samaj Education Society and others Vs. State of W.B. and others, reported in (2004) 6 SCC 224, Secretary, Malankara Syrian Catholic College Vs. T Jose and others, reported in (2007) 1 SCC 386 and many other subsequent judgments.