01Facts
The petitioners were lecturers at Sri Siddalingeshwara B.A. Integrated Kannada Pandith College, which had closed for lack of admissions.
¶ 1–2Relying on a prior order in W.P. No. 16581 of 2025 concerning a similarly situated employee, they sought consideration of the Government’s proposal dated 05.01.2026 for their deputation and release of salary from August 2024.
¶ 1–2, 6–8The Government had proposed deputation placements for the petitioners in Schedule II to Annexure-H.
¶ 4–5, 14–15The petitioners also relied on the Government’s sanction of salary funds, while the University submitted that it required receipt of the funds before it could disburse them.
¶ 10, 1602Issues
i.1. Whether the State should consider and pass appropriate orders concerning the petitioners’ proposed deputation, having regard to Annexure-H and the earlier order in W.P. No. 16581 of 2025.
¶ 7–9, 13–15ii.2. Whether steps should be taken to release and disburse the petitioners’ salary from 24.08.2024 onwards.
¶ 1, 16–1703Law Applied
The Court acted under Article 226 of the Constitution, exercising its jurisdiction to issue mandamus and direct public authorities to consider and decide a matter in accordance with law.
¶ 8, 12It applied the directions made in the coordinate Bench’s order in W.P. No. 16581 of 2025: the State was to consider implementation of the relevant proposal, the University was to ascertain salary entitlement and take steps to forward or disburse the amount, and the employer institutions were to pay salary amounts received for the employee.
¶ 8, 12The Court extended the relevant directions to these petitioners, while preserving the requirement that salary be paid in accordance with their entitlement and subject to disbursement of funds.
¶ 17–2004Reasoning
The Court noted that Annexure-H identified proposed deputation placements for the petitioners and that the petitioners claimed parity with the employee whose case had been considered in W.P. No. 16581 of 2025.
¶ 5–8, 14–15The State’s submission that it would consider the petitioners’ cases in light of that order supported directing it to take a decision on their proposed deputations, rather than ordering deputation outright.
¶ 9, 11, 13On salary, the Court followed the earlier order’s approach: the Government was to release funds to the University, and the University was then to take appropriate steps to pay the petitioners according to their entitlement.
¶ 16–2005Holding
The writ petition was disposed of.
¶ 13–15, 18, 20The State was directed to pass appropriate orders concerning the petitioners’ deputation, taking Annexure-H into account, within four weeks of receiving the order; it was also directed to release funds to the University within four weeks if not already disbursed.
¶ 13–15, 18, 20Upon receipt of the funds, the University was directed to take appropriate steps to pay the petitioners’ salary in accordance with law.
¶ 17, 19Original Court PDF
VIJAYAKUMAR HvsSTATE OF KARNATAKA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
