High Court of Karnataka Dismisses State's Petition Against KAT Order Directing Regularisation of Teacher's Services. The Court upheld the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal's order quashing the reversion of a special teacher and directing her regularisation, holding that the teacher had been appointed against a sanctioned post and had completed the requisite period of service.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: DHARWAD In Favour of Accused

Admin

2026-05-18 14:38:12

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The case involves two writ petitions filed by the State of Karnataka and its education department officials against an order of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KAT), Belagavi Bench, dated 29.09.2023 in Application No. 10511/2023. The respondent, Smt. Umadevi Hundekar, a teacher, had approached the Tribunal challenging her reversion from the post of special teacher to assistant teacher and seeking regularisation of her services. The Tribunal allowed her application, quashing the reversion order and directing the authorities to regularise her services. The State challenged this order before the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The High Court, after hearing both sides, dismissed the petitions, upholding the Tribunal's order. The Court held that the respondent was appointed against a sanctioned post and had completed the requisite period of service, entitling her to regularisation. The reversion was found to be unjustified. The judgment emphasises that teachers appointed against sanctioned posts and who have completed probation are entitled to regularisation, and arbitrary reversion orders cannot be sustained.

Headnote

A) Service Law - Regularisation - Appointment against sanctioned post - The respondent-teacher was appointed as a special teacher against a sanctioned post and had completed the requisite period of service. The Tribunal directed her regularisation, which was upheld by the High Court. Held that the teacher was entitled to regularisation as she was appointed against a sanctioned post and had completed the probation period (Paras 1-10).

B) Service Law - Reversion - Quashing of reversion order - The Tribunal quashed the order reverting the respondent-teacher from the post of special teacher to that of assistant teacher. The High Court upheld this, noting that the reversion was unjustified as the teacher had been validly appointed and had served for a considerable period. Held that the reversion order was liable to be set aside (Paras 1-10).

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal was justified in directing the regularisation of the respondent-teacher's services and quashing the order of reversion.

Final Decision

The High Court dismissed both writ petitions, upholding the order of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal dated 29.09.2023. The Tribunal's direction to regularise the services of the respondent-teacher and quash the reversion order was affirmed.

Law Points

Regularisation of service
Appointment against sanctioned post
Completion of probation period
Karnataka Education Department Services (General) Rules
1963
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India

Case Details

2024 LawText (KAR) (07) 97

Writ Petition No. 102121 of 2024 (S-KAT) and Writ Petition No. 102119 of 2024 (S-KAT)

2024-07-12

N.V. Anjaria, Chief Justice, S.G. Pandit, J.

Mr. J.M. Gangadhar, AAG for petitioners; Mr. Suraj S. Mutnal, Advocate for respondent

The State of Karnataka and others

Smt. Umadevi Hundekar

Nature of Litigation

Writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the order of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal.

Remedy Sought

The State sought to quash the Tribunal's order dated 29.09.2023 which directed regularisation of the respondent-teacher and quashed her reversion.

Filing Reason

The State was aggrieved by the Tribunal's order directing regularisation of the respondent-teacher's services and quashing her reversion.

Previous Decisions

The Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Belagavi Bench, in Application No. 10511/2023 dated 29.09.2023, allowed the respondent's application and directed regularisation of her services and quashed the reversion order.

Issues

Whether the Tribunal was correct in directing regularisation of the respondent-teacher's services? Whether the reversion of the respondent from the post of special teacher to assistant teacher was justified?

Submissions/Arguments

The State argued that the respondent was not entitled to regularisation as her appointment was not in accordance with rules. The respondent contended that she was appointed against a sanctioned post and had completed the requisite period of service, entitling her to regularisation.

Ratio Decidendi

A teacher appointed against a sanctioned post who has completed the requisite period of service is entitled to regularisation. Reversion from such a post without valid justification is unsustainable.

Judgment Excerpts

The Tribunal allowed the application and directed the authorities to regularise the services of the respondent and quashed the order of reversion. The respondent was appointed against a sanctioned post and had completed the requisite period of service.

Procedural History

The respondent filed Application No. 10511/2023 before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Belagavi Bench, which was allowed on 29.09.2023. The State challenged this order by filing two writ petitions before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, which were dismissed on 12.07.2024.