PRESIDENT/SECRETARY DISTRICT MADAKARI NAYAKA ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER Vs. EDUCATIONAL APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioners are President and Principal of Maharaja Madakarinayaka First Grade College, Chitradurga. They have filed these Writ Petitions seeking to quash the common order at Annexure -M passed by the Educational Appellate Tribunal allowing the appeals in M.A. Nos. 12 and 13/1994 filed by Respondents 3 and 2 respectively, setting aside the Orders of termination dated 1.4.1993 and directing payment of salary from the date of their joining into service upto 8.10.1992 by the Petitioners herein and thereafter; by the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, Bangalore and the Regional Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, Mysore, who were Respondents 3 and 4 in the appeals. The appeals came to be filed by Respondents 2 and 3 herein against the order dated 1.4.1993 intimating that they have been relieved from the post of Lecturers.

(2.) MR . M. Raghavendrachar, learned Counsel for the Petitioners contends that there was no approval of appointment of Respondents 2 and 3. Even Smt. Shobha Patil, learned Government pleader also made the same submission. But the same is wholly untenable as Petitioners themselves have produced Annexure -N dated 8.10.1992 by which the appointment of Respondents 2 and 3 have been approved. The approval was granted relaxing the economy Order. This document belies the submission made in this regard. The Educational Appellate Tribunal (EAT) has considered this aspect in paragraph 19 of its judgment and has rightly held that there was no force in the contention that there was no approval of the appointments. Thus, the contention does not hold water and the same is wholly untenable.

(3.) THE EAT has elaborately considered all aspects of the case and discussed the case law on the subject and recorded its findings by assigning valid and cogent reasons. The EAT being fact finding authority, the findings recorded by it on the basis of the material placed on record cannot be substituted by this Court in exercise of its Writ jurisdiction. Both the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Government Pleader were unable to show that the findings of the EAT are either erroneous or perverse. Hence, no interference is warranted in this case.