Karnataka HC applies ruling striking down 2015 bar on Kannada-exam increments for aided-school staff

The petitioners, teaching and non-teaching employees of private aided educational institutions, sought to invalidate the Karnataka Education (Amendment) Act, 2015 (Karnataka Act No. 4 of 2015) and obtain one additional increment for passing the Kannada language examination or an equivalent examination under the Karnataka Civil Services (Service and Kannada Language Examination) Rules, 1974 and related circulars.

The petitioners relied on a Coordinate Bench decision dated 24 July 2020 in W.P. No. 105439/2014 and connected matters, which had struck down Act No. 4 of 2015 and directed the State to consider claims for additional increments.

The State’s appeals against that decision, including W.A. No. 100003/2021, were dismissed by a Division Bench.

Whether the challenge to the Karnataka Education (Amendment) Act, 2015 was governed by the Coordinate Bench decision striking down that Act.

Whether the petitioners were entitled to directions for consideration of their claims for an additional increment for passing the Kannada language examination.

Section 87 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, as amended by Karnataka Act No. 4 of 2015, was the statutory provision at issue.

The Coordinate Bench held that the amendment was unconstitutional, including on Article 14 grounds, because it sought to deny aided-institution employees an increment available to comparable Government-school employees and to nullify prior judicial decisions without curing the legal basis of those decisions. The Coordinate Bench’s ruling was affirmed by the Division Bench in the State’s appeals.

The present Court treated that affirmed ruling as governing the dispute.

The Court did not independently re-examine the constitutional challenge or the merits of increment entitlement. It held that the issues were no longer res integra because the Coordinate Bench had already struck down Act No. 4 of 2015 and the Division Bench had dismissed the State’s appeals, confirming that decision.

On that basis, it granted the constitutional challenge in the terms of the earlier order and directed consideration of the petitioners’ increment claims in accordance with law.

The petitioners were also permitted to submit a fresh representation annexing the judgment.