MANSOOR BADEUZZAMA AND ORS. Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, THE DIRECTOR, PRE-UNIVERSITY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT AND THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, PRE-UNIVERSITY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1st petitioner claims to have been appointed as 'Lecturer' on 20.9.1988, 2nd, petitioner on 13.12.1993, 3rd petitioner on 13.2.1993, 4th petitioner on 25.7.1980, 5th petitioner on 25.8.1980, 6th petitioner on 30.8.1981, 7th petitioner on 4.7.1985, 8th petitioner on 18/21.12.1987, 9th petitioner on 20.5.1994, 10th petitioner on 26.5.1995, 11th petitioner on 29.6.1996, 12th petitioner on 14.6.1994, 13th petitioner on 21/28.1.1991 and 14th petitioner on 6.5.1993 at different Colleges in Bijapur District. According to the petitioners, 1st petitioner obtained order dated 18.9.1992 approving his appointment along with salary grant, while the 2nd and 3rd petitioner on 26.2.1997, 4th & 5th petitioner on 2.2.1981, 6th petitioner on 5.2.1982, 7th petitioner on 27.6.1986, 8th petitioner on 2.2.1989, 9th petitioner on 17.12.2005, 10th petitioner on 7.12.2005, 11th and 12th petitioner on 11.6.1998, 13th petitioner on 24.12.1992 and 14th petitioner on 4.8.1997. Petitioners aggrieved by non consideration of their representation to extend the service benefits from the date of their initial appointment and not from the date of approval of appointment with aid, have presented these common petitions for a writ in the nature of mandamus. Learned Government Advocate, when directed to take notice for respondents, submits that in the light of the decision of the learned single Judge in writ petition No. 19431/2005 and connected petitions in 'V.T.S. Jeyabal v. State of Karnataka and Others' D.D. 13.10.2006, reckoning the service of the Teachers from the date of initial appointment in the private educational institution instead of the date of admission of the institution to Grant -in -Aid or the date of approval of appointment of the teachers, for the purpose of fixation of pay scales, seniority and all consequential benefits, when called in question, in a writ appeal and thereafter before the Apex Court, the appeal and the petition before the Apex Court, were rejected, affirming the decision in Jeyabal's case.

(2.) IN that view of the matter, respondents are directed to reckon the petitioners' service from the date of their initial appointment and not from the date of approval of their appointment with aid and entitle the petitioners to all service benefits within three months.