ACADEMY OF MEDICAL EDUCATIONS vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:9943-DB
WA No.200146 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030068632025



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA



KALABURAGI BENCH

ST
DATED THIS THE 21 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO

WRIT APPEAL NO.200146 OF 2025 (S-RES)


BETWEEN:

1. ACADEMY OF MEDICAL EDUCATION’S
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY
BIJANGERA ROAD,
NEXT TO GOVT. POLYTECHNIC
RAICHUR- 584 101.

2. THE PRINCIPAL
AMES DENTAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL
BIJANGERA ROAD,
NEXT TO GOVT. POLYTECHNIC
RAICHUR- 584101.

…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. RAJKUMAR S. KADGANCHI, ADVOCATE)

AND:


1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH THE PRL. SECRETARY,
HEALTH AND FAMILY PLANNING
DEPARTMENT (MEDICAL EDUCATION)
VIKAS SOUDHA,
BANGALORE.








Digitally signed by
VARSHA N
RASALKAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:9943-DB
WA No.200146 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030068632025



2. THE DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA,
AIWAN-E-GALIB MARG,
TEMPLE KOTLE LANE,
NEW DELHI- 110002,
THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN.

3. THE STATE DENTAL COUNCIL
APPAJAPPA AGRAHAR NO.22,
ST
1 MAIN ROAD, CHAMARAJPETH,
BANGALORE-9,
THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN.

4. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY
OF HEALTH SCIENCES,
TH
KARNATAKA 4 BLOCK
JAYANAGAR-560041,
THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR.

5. DR. SALIM S/O ABDUL GAFFER,
AGE: 72 YEARS,
OCC: MEDICAL PRACTITIONER,
R/O. H. NO.7-1-1, GAJARPETH,
RAICHUR-584103.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY, GA FOR R1;
SRI SUDHIRSINGH R. VIJAPUR, DSGI FOR R2;
SRI. R.J. BHUSARE, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SRI. P. VILAS KUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI NITESH P. PADIYAL, ADVOCATE FOR R5;
V/O DTD.06.11.2025 NOTICE TO R3 DISPENSED WITH)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO A) ALLOW THE
ABOVE WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE FINAL ORDER IN
WRIT PETITION NO.207490/2017 DATED 29.11.2024 PASSED
BY LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE, FOR HEREIN ABOVE AND IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE. B) PASS ANY ORDER AN DIRECTIONS

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:9943-DB
WA No.200146 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030068632025


UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS
FIT.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO

ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)

1. This writ appeal is filed by the appellants challenging
the order dated 29.11.2024 passed by the learned
Single Judge in W.P.No.207490 of 2017, wherein the
said writ petition was allowed with a direction to the
appellants to pay salary to respondent No.5 from the
date of his appointment as a Lecturer as per the
Government of Karnataka pay scale till he attains the
age of superannuation. It was also observed that
respondent No.5 would be entitled for retiral benefits
that a Government servant would be entitled to,
commensurate with the post that the petitioner held
and that the said order shall be complied within a

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:9943-DB
WA No.200146 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030068632025


period of three months from the date of receipt of
copy of the said order.

2. The said order was passed on 29.11.2024. The
appellants aggrieved by the same, filed this writ
appeal on 05.06.2025 along with an application for
condonation of delay of 158 days in filing the writ
appeal. In support of the application, the appellants
filed an affidavit of one Sri.Shivanand Aspalli,
Principal AME Dental College and Hospital, Raichur,
stating that respondent No.5 filed W.P.No.207490 of
2017 and the same was disposed of by order dated
29.11.2024. The present appellant No.3 expired
during the proceedings of the writ petition. Hence, by
the time, consenting Society would appoint a new
Secretary, the limitation for filing had lapsed. Hence,
now new secretary is elected after he knowing the
facts filed this appeal, since the above final order
directly affects the society. Hence, prays to condone
the delay.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:9943-DB
WA No.200146 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030068632025



3. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the
appellants and learned Senior Counsel Sri P. Vilas
Kumar appearing for respondent No.5.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
then Secretary passed away on 14.09.2024 due to
cardiac arrest at Bengaluru, and as on today, no new
Secretary is appointed to the said Educational
Institution. Thus, delay has been caused in filing the
writ appeal. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to
allow the application.

5. Learned Senior Counsel Sri P. Vilas Kumar appearing
for respondent No.5 submits from the perusal of the
affidavit enclosed to the application, that the
appellants have not shown sufficient cause for not
filing the appeal within time. Hence, prays to dismiss
the application.

6. Perused the records and considered the submissions
of learned counsel for the parties.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:9943-DB
WA No.200146 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030068632025



7. It is an undisputed fact that respondent No.5 filed a
writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing
the appellants herein to extend all the terminal and
statutory benefits either of UGC or corresponding
Government pay scale as a Lecturer for a period from
1992 to 1998 and from 1998 to 2017 as Professor.
The said writ petition was pending for almost more
than seven years. The learned Single Judge, by order
dated 29.11.2024, allowed the writ petition and a
direction was issued to the appellants herein to pay
the salary of the fifth respondent from the date of his
appointment as per the Government of Karnataka
pay scale till he attains the age of superannuation.
The petitioner would also be entitled to retiral
benefits that a government servant would be entitled
to, commensurate with the post that the petitioner
held. The said order was to be complied within a
period of three months from the date of receipt of a
copy of that order. The appellants did not choose to

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:9943-DB
WA No.200146 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030068632025


challenge the said order within the period of
limitation prescribed. After a lapse of 158 days, they
have filed the writ appeal, wherein contending that
the then Secretary passed away and a new Secretary
has been appointed. The reasons shown in the
affidavit for condoning the delay have not been
sufficiently explained.

8. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Chennai
Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board
1
v. T.T. Murali Babu has held at paragraphs 16 and
17, which reads as follows:
“ 16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and
laches should not be lightly brushed
aside. A writ court is required to weigh
the explanation offered and the
acceptability of the same. The court
should bear in mind that it is exercising
an extraordinary and equitable
jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it
has a duty to protect the rights of the
citizens but simultaneously it is to keep
itself alive to the primary principle that

1

(2014) 4 SCC 108

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:9943-DB
WA No.200146 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030068632025


when an aggrieved person, without
adequate reason, approaches the court at
his own leisure or pleasure, the court
would be under legal obligation to
scrutinise whether the lis at a belated
stage should be entertained or not. Be it
noted, delay comes in the way of
equity. In certain circumstances delay
and laches may not be fatal but in most
circumstances inordinate delay would
only invite disaster for the litigant who
knocks at the doors of the court. Delay
reflects inactivity and inaction on the
part of a litigant — a litigant who has
forgotten the basic norms, namely,
“procrastination is the greatest thief
of time” and second, law does not
permit one to sleep and rise like a
phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard
and causes injury to the lis.
17. In the case at hand, though there
has been four years' delay in approaching
the court, yet the writ court chose not to
address the same. It is the duty of the
court to scrutinise whether such
enormous delay is to be ignored without
any justification. That apart, in the
present case, such belated approach
gains more significance as the respondent
employee being absolutely careless to his
duty and nurturing a lackadaisical

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:9943-DB
WA No.200146 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030068632025


attitude to the responsibility had
remained unauthorisedly absent on the
pretext of some kind of ill health. We
repeat at the cost of repetition that
remaining innocuously oblivious to such
delay does not foster the cause of justice.
On the contrary, it brings in injustice, for
it is likely to affect others. Such delay
may have impact on others' ripened
rights and may unnecessarily drag others
into litigation which in an acceptable
realm of probability, may have been
treated to have attained finality. A court
is not expected to give indulgence to
such indolent persons — who
compete with “Kumbhakarna” or for
that matter “Rip Van Winkle”. In our
considered opinion, such delay does not
deserve any indulgence and on the said
ground alone the writ court should have
thrown the petition overboard at the very
threshold.”

9. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of
Union of India and Others v. Simon Topno, in
Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s).

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:9943-DB
WA No.200146 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030068632025


64341/2025 disposed of on 15.12.2025, held in
paragraph 2 as follows:
“2. We have considered the explanation(s)
offered for condonation of the delay. We do
not find satisfactory explanation for condoning
the delay. Moreover, as held by this Court in
Shivamma (Dead) by LRs v. Karnataka
Housing Board & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine
SC 1969, delay in filing petitions/ appeals by
State or its instrumentalities is not to be
condoned by showing extra leniency for
lethargic and negligent attitude of their
officers who tend to carve out their own
periods of limitation having little regard for the
limitation period specified in the statute or the
rules. Consequently, the delay condonation
application is rejected.”

10. Respondent No.5 filed a contempt petition on
21.04.2025. After filing of contempt petition, the
appellant filed this writ appeal on 05.06.2025. The
Hon’ble Apex Court had an occasion to consider the

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:9943-DB
WA No.200146 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030068632025


said issue in title in the case of Israr Ahmed Khan
2
v.Amarnath Prasad and others held as follows:
“27. Delayed filing of appeals should be the
exception, but in recent times, the exception
has practically evolved to become the rule.
Orders passed by the Courts are not complied
with for a long time, and when Contempt
Petitions are filed, belated appeals, with
tremendous delay, are preferred.
28. The (alleged) continuing contumacious
conduct of the defaulting party is sought to be
justified on the mere production of a
Diary/Filing/Stamp Reporting Number showing
that an appeal has been preferred, so as to
obtain multiple adjournments in contempt
matters.
29. We, in no uncertain terms, deprecate these
practices. It is felt that by such modus
operandi, disobedient litigants act brazenly
which has the further effect of bringing down
the authority and majesty of the Courts and
the rule of law, interfering in the administration

2
(2026) 4 SCC 341

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:9943-DB
WA No.200146 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030068632025


of justice. The same may well, in certain
situations, border on criminal contempt.
30. The High Courts should deal with such
unscrupulous litigants, more so, when they
happen to be 'State', within the meaning of
Article 12 of the Constitution, or like bodies,
with an iron hand. Unless the High Courts, so
also this Court deal with these aspects firmly,
we run the clear risk of erosion of the
unflinching faith that the ordinary litigants of
this country repose in the Judiciary at all
levels. It is the solemn duty of all of us
manning the Courts across the hierarchy to
ensure that the public faith never wavers.”

11. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent
No.5 submits that respondent No.5 is aged more
than 72 years and he is suffering from cancer. He is
bedridden and he submits that respondent No.5 is
not getting the fruits of the order passed by the
learned Single Judge. Considering the age of
respondent No.5 and mandate laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases referred to supra, we

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:9943-DB
WA No.200146 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030068632025


decline to condone the delay in filing the writ appeal.
Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER

i. I.A.No.1 of 2025 filed for condonation of delay
of 158 days is rejected. Consequently, the
writ appeal is dismissed .

ii. In view of dismissal of the writ appeal,
pending I.As. do not survive for consideration.

Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE


Sd/-
(SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO)
JUDGE

VNR
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 13
Ct:pk