THE SECRETARY vs THE VICE CHANCELLOR
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17621-DB
WA No. 100589 of 2026
C/W CCC No. 100091 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020155532026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 28 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE HEMA KULKARNI
WRIT APPEAL NO.100589 OF 2026 (S-RES)
C/W. CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.100091 OF 2026
IN WA No. 100589/2026
BETWEEN:
1. THE SECRETARY, PRIMARY AND
HIGHER SECONDARY
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 01.
2. THE COMMISSIONER,
DEPT. OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
BENGALURU – 560 001.
Digitally signed
by RAKESH S
HARIHAR
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench
3. THE COMMISSIONER,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
DHARWAD – 580 001.
4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
DEPT. OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
CHIKODI (NORTH),
DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 201.
5. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER,
MUDALAGAI, TQ: GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 312.
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17621-DB
WA No. 100589 of 2026
C/W CCC No. 100091 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020155532026
…APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP)
AND:
THE VICE CHANCELLOR,
METHODIST MISSION SCHOOLS,
DHUPADAL,
TQ: GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 306.
(REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED
SIGNATORY/MANAGEMENT).
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SHRIHARSHA A. NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S. 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL AND
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.01.2026 IN
W.P.NO.112349/2019 (S-RES), PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND
ETC.
IN CCC NO. 100091/2026
BETWEEN:
THE VICE CHAIRMAN,
METHODIST MISSION SCHOOLS,
DHUPADAL – 591 306,
TQ: GOKAK,
DIST: BELGAUM.
...COMPLAINANT
(BY SRI. SHRIHARSH A. NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17621-DB
WA No. 100589 of 2026
C/W CCC No. 100091 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020155532026
1. SMT. RASHMI MAHESH,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: SECRETARY,
PRIMARY AND HIGHER SECONDARY,
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. SRI. VIKASH KISHOR SUROLOKAR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: COMMISSIONER,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
BENGALURU – 560 001.
3. DR. ISHWAR ULLAGADDI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: COMMISSIONER,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
DHARWAD – 580 001.
4. SHRI. R.S. SITRAMA,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
CHIKODI (NORTH),
CHIKODI – 591 201,
TQ: CHIKODI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
5. SHRI. P. B. HIREMATH,
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER,
MUDALAGI – 591 312,
TQ: GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
... ACCUSED
6. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
PRIMARY AND HIGHER SECONDARY
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
M.S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 01.
... PRO-FORMA RESPONDENT
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17621-DB
WA No. 100589 of 2026
C/W CCC No. 100091 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020155532026
(BY SRI. RAKESH M. BILKI, GA RESPONDENT/STATE)
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF
THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, R/W. ARTICLE 215
OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950, PRAYING TO INITIATE
CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE
ACCUSED FOR INTENTIONALLY AND DELIBERATELY
DISOBEYING THE ORDER DATED 21.01.2026 PASSED IN
WP NO.112349/2019 AT ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT AND
PUNISH THE ACCUSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL AND PETITION, COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS
DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
AND
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE HEMA KULKARNI
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA )
The appellant-State is before us, calling in question the
order dated 21.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in
Writ Petition No.112349 of 2019, whereby the learned Single
Judge has passed the following order:
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17621-DB
WA No. 100589 of 2026
C/W CCC No. 100091 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020155532026
“The petitioner-Institution has approached this
Court seeking to challenge the order dated 21.10.2016
(Annexure-K), passed by respondent No.3 whereby the
approval to the post of Isaq Mudalagi was declined on the
ground that, in terms of the Government Order dated
01.06.1999, there was a ban on filling up vacant posts
owing to the existence of surplus teachers in private
aided primary schools. The petitioner also seek to quash
the subsequent order dated 09.03.2018 (Annexure-M),
passed by respondent No.2 rejecting approval on the
ground that the petitioner-Institution is not a minority
institution and that no material are produced its minority
status.
2. Brief facts:
The Government, by notification dated 20.05.2000,
clarified that the General Rules relating to filling up
vacancies and the teachers students ratio are not
applicable to minority institution. The petitioner-
Institution claims minority status and it is not in dispute
that Sri Isaq Mudalagi has served as an Assistant Teacher
in the petitioner-institution for a period of six years.
Further, respondent No.1, by communication dated
30.07.2001 address to respondent No.4, clarify that
schools run by minority institutions, vacancy arising due
to death, resignation, or retirement, could be filed by
relaxing the condition relating to surplus teachers. It is
also places on record that the Government has
subsequently lifted the ban on filling up the vacancies as
the issue relating to surplus teachers stood resolved.
In that back drop, upon a representation submitted
by Sri Isaq Mudalagi, seeking approval of his post, the
petitioner management forwarded the same to the
competent authority seeking approval of the
appointment, grant of pay scale, and release of grant in
aid, relying upon the Government notification dated
20.05.2000.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that in terms of the Government notification dated
20.05.2000, where a school belongs to a minority
institution and fulfils the prescribed conditions, filing up
vacant post is permissible. It is further contended that Sri
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17621-DB
WA No. 100589 of 2026
C/W CCC No. 100091 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020155532026
Isaq Mudalagi has been functioning as the sole teacher in
the school and denial of approval is arbitrary and
unsustainable in law.
4. Per contra, learned Additional Government
Advocate appearing for the respondent/State sought to
justifies the impugned order and submitted that the same
does not warrant any interference.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
Institution and learned Additional Government Advocate
for the respondents/State.
6. This Court has carefully considered the
contentions and perused the material on record.
7. It is an undisputed fact that in terms of the
Government notification dated 20.05.2000 (Annexure-D),
the teacher-students ratio is not applicable to minority
institution. It is also not in dispute that petitioner-
Institution is a minority institution. The impugned orders
(Annexures-K and M) proceed on the premise that there
was ban on filling up vacancies and on applicability
teacher-students rotation, grounds which are admittedly
in applicable to minority institutions.
8. In view of the above this court is of the
considered opinion that the impugned order declining to
approval to post recommending by the petitioner
Institution and warrants interference. Accordingly, this
Court pass the following:
ORDER
i. The writ petition is allowed.
ii. Impugned orders dated 21.10.2016
(Annexure-K) and 09.03.2018 (Annexure-M)
passed by the respondent No.3 are hereby
quashed.
iii. Respondents No.1 and 5 are directed to
consider the petitioner's representation
dated 10.07.2019 seeking approval of the
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17621-DB
WA No. 100589 of 2026
C/W CCC No. 100091 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020155532026
post of Sri Isaq Mudalagi, in terms of the
Government notification dated 20.05.2000
(Annexure-D) and report of the Block
Education Officer-respondent No.5
(Annexure-J) and pass appropriate orders
within a period of four weeks from the date
of receipt of certified copy of this order.”
2. The order of the learned Single Judge is innocuous,
as the learned Single Judge directs respondent Nos.1 and 5 to
consider the petitioner/respondent’s representation dated
10.07.2019 for the purpose for which it is rendered and pass
necessary orders thereon in accordance with law within four
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
3. Within four weeks, the order was not implemented.
Therefore, the respondents had to invoke the contempt
jurisdiction of this Court. Then sprang the writ appeal from the
hands of the State, immediately against an innocuous order.
4. It becomes apposite to refer to the judgment of the
Apex Court in BIHAR INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT
1
AUTHORITY v. SCOPE SALES PRIVATE LIMITED , which
considers the scope of entertaining intra-court appeals. It has
held as follows:
1
2026 SCC OnLine SC 112
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17621-DB
WA No. 100589 of 2026
C/W CCC No. 100091 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020155532026
“…. …. ….
13. We must also bear in mind the nature and
extent of jurisdiction that an intra-court appellate
Bench of a high court exercise. Such appellate
jurisdiction is conferred either under the Letters
Patent or by the relevant statutory provisions. It is
pertinent to note that both - Single Bench and
Division Bench - exercise the same jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution. In our view, the
exercise of intra-court appellate jurisdiction is
warranted only where the judgment or order under
challenge is demonstrably erroneous or suffers from
perversity. Such jurisdiction ought not to be invoked
merely because another view is possible on the same
set of facts, particularly where the view adopted by
the Single Judge is a plausible and reasonable one.
In other words, an intra-court appellate Bench ought
not to substitute its own view, merely because such
Bench considers its view to be better than the one
taken by the Single Bench; so long as the view taken
by the Single Bench is a plausible one, interference
should stay at a distance.
14. We find it profitable to refer to certain
precedents, relevant paragraphs wherefrom are reproduced
below:
14.1 In Baddula Lakshmaiah v. Sri Anjaneya Swami
Temple , it was held:
2. Mr Ram Kumar, learned counsel for the
appellants, inter alia contends that the Letters
Patent Bench of the High Court could not have
upset a finding of fact recorded by a learned Single
Judge on fresh reconciliation of the two documents,
arriving at different results than those arrived at
earlier by the two courts aforementioned. Though
the argument sounds attractive, it does not bear
scrutiny. Against the orders of the trial court, first
appeal lay before the High Court, both on facts as
well as law. It is the internal working of the High
Court which splits it into different ‘Benches’ and yet
the court remains one. A letters patent appeal, as
permitted under the Letters Patent, is normally an
intra-court appeal whereunder the Letters Patent
Bench, sitting as a Court of Correction, corrects its
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17621-DB
WA No. 100589 of 2026
C/W CCC No. 100091 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020155532026
own orders in exercise of the same jurisdiction as
was vested in the Single Bench. Such is not an
appeal against an order of a subordinate
court. In such appellate jurisdiction the High
Court exercises the powers of a Court of
Error. So understood, the appellate power
under the Letters Patent is quite distinct, in
contrast to what is ordinarily understood in
procedural language. That apart the construction
of the aforementioned two documents involved, in
the very nature of their import, a mixed question of
law and fact, well within the powers of the Letters
Patent Bench to decide. The Bench was not
powerless in that regard.
(emphasis ours)
14.2 This Court in Narendra & Co. (P)
Ltd. v. Workmen noted that:
5. … Be that as it may, in an intra-court
appeal, on a finding of fact, unless the
Appellate Bench reaches a conclusion that the
finding of the Single Bench is perverse, it shall
not disturb the same. Merely because another
view or a better view is possible, there should
be no interference with or disturbance of the
order passed by the Single Judge, unless both
sides agree for a fairer approach on relief.
14.3 On whether a remand could be ordered in
exercise of intra-court appellate jurisdiction, this Court
in Roma Sonkar v. M.P. State Public Service
Commission expressed reservations in the following words:
3. We have very serious reservations
whether the Division Bench in an intra-court
appeal could have remitted a writ petition in
the matter of moulding the relief. It is the
exercise of jurisdiction of the High Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The learned Single Judge as well as the
Division Bench exercised the same
jurisdiction. Only to avoid inconvenience to
the litigants, another tier of screening by the
Division Bench is provided in terms of the
power of the High Court but that does not
mean that the Single Judge is subordinate to
the Division Bench. Being a writ proceeding,
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17621-DB
WA No. 100589 of 2026
C/W CCC No. 100091 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020155532026
the Division Bench was called upon, in the
intra-court appeal, primarily and mostly to
consider the correctness or otherwise of the
view taken by the learned Single Judge.
Hence, in our view, the Division Bench needs
to consider the appeal(s) on merits by
deciding on the correctness of the judgment
of the learned Single Judge, instead of
remitting the matter to the learned Single
Judge.
14.4 In AAI v. Pradip Kumar Banerjee , while
referring to its decision in Narendra (supra), this Court
observed as follows:
41. The position is, thus, settled that in an
intra-court writ appeal, the appellate court
must restrain itself and the interference into
the judgment passed by the learned Single
Judge is permissible only if the judgment of
the learned Single Judge is perverse or
suffers from an error apparent in law.
However, the Division Bench, in the present
case, failed to record any such finding and
rather, proceeded to delve into extensive
reappreciation of evidence to overturn the
judgment of the learned Single Judge.
(emphasis ours)
15. Bearing in mind the larger public interest that
was involved coupled with the fact that the plot of land in
question was sought to be reserved for establishment of an
educational institution, we are of the firm opinion that
dismissal of the writ petition was an available option for the
Single Judge. The view taken by the Division Bench that
BIADA lacked the authority to cancel the allotment
though prima facie may appear to be appealing, yet, the
same is debatable.
15.1 Applying the principles governing the exercise
of intra-court appellate jurisdiction, as laid down in the
aforesaid precedents, to the facts of the present case, we
observe that judicial discipline demanded due
deference to the exercise of discretion by the court of
first instance, particularly when such discretion was
exercised on relevant considerations. The Single
Judge having refused exercise of discretion on a
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17621-DB
WA No. 100589 of 2026
C/W CCC No. 100091 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020155532026
ground which, in our opinion, is valid, the Division
Bench ought to have been loath to allow the writ
petition, and that too in exercise of its intra-court
appellate jurisdiction. The judgment and order of the
Single Judge was far from being wholly incorrect or
perverse.”
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court in the afore-quoted judgment observes that it is
that an order of the learned Single Judge can be interfered with
in an intra-Court appeal only if the order suffers from perversity
or an error apparent in law. Neither of the two is found in the
case at hand.
5. Therefore, there is no warrant for interference
with the order of the learned Single Judge, except for an
observation that all contentions would, however, remain
open to the parties to be urged at the appropriate time.
6. With the aforesaid observation, the writ appeal
dismissed
stands .
7. In the light of the dismissal of the writ appeal,
the contempt petition, which alleges recalcitrance on the
dismissed
part of the respondent-State, also stands .
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17621-DB
WA No. 100589 of 2026
C/W CCC No. 100091 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020155532026
8. However, it is observed that, in the event the
State does not pass necessary orders upon consideration of
the representation, as directed by the learned Single Judge,
within four weeks from today, the contempt petition would
be revived.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(HEMA KULKARNI)
JUDGE
VNP / CT: ASC
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37