SUNILKUMAR Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A deaf and dumb person is before the Court seeking the grant-in-aid for the post of Drawing Teacher. His appointment to the said post is already approved, though without the aid however. He is appointed as a Drawing Teacher in 1998 in the fifth respondent Jyothi High School, being managed by the fourth respondent Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Multipurpose Society. He has raised the challenge to the third respondent's memorandum, dated 05.02.2008 (Annexure-C), which states that the petitioner's appointment as the Drawing Teacher is approved but without the grant-in-aid.

(2.) Sri Vilaskumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been working as a Drawing Teacher from 1998. He submits that the Block Educational Officer and other officers of the Education Department have been holding the periodical inspection of the fifth respondent High School. They have never raised any objection with regard to the petitioner's eligibility or working. He submits that the refusal to give the aid to the Drawing Teacher appears to be on the ground that the proposal in respect of the petitioner's post is submitted belatedly.

(3.) Sri R.V.Nadagouda, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 raises the preliminary objection. He submits that the impugned memorandum is passed in 2008 and that the petitioner has approached this Court four years thereafter, that is in 2012. He submits that the petitioner having accepted the terms and conditions of the impugned office memorandum, is estopped from turning around and raising the challenge to one condition in the impugned office memorandum. He submits that the petitioner did not possess the eligibility criteria as on the date of his appointment as the Drawing Teacher. He submits that the petitioner claims to have acquired the eligibility criteria subsequent to his appointment. He draws my attention to the letter, dated 09.08.2012 (Annexure-R3) issued by the Additional Commissioner of Public Instructions to the Deputy Director of Public Instructions. The letter states that the Management has fabricated the documents and cheated the Education Department. It is alleged that the documents are fabricated, because the petitioner is shown as working when he was actually acquiring the Diploma qualification.