Section 133 revision orders must give reasons addressing the claimant’s grievance.

The petitioner, a drawing teacher appointed in 1999 at a school managed by respondent No. 5, challenged the Government’s order rejecting his revision under Section 133 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983.

His appointment had been approved in 2011, and his name was recommended for salary grant, but his case remained pending while other teachers were admitted to grant-in-aid.

The management alleged that he had been unauthorisedly absent; following an inspection, the Block Education Officer found that allegation false, noting that the petitioner had been deputed to another school run by the same management.

The petitioner’s revision was dismissed by the Government on 24 September 2024, prompting this writ petition.

1. Whether the Government’s order rejecting the petitioner’s revision under Section 133 was sustainable when it did not give reasons addressing his grievance and the available departmental findings.

2. Whether the Court could direct consideration of the petitioner’s salary-grant claim and issue related directions to the management, subject to his eligibility in law.

Section 133 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 empowers the State Government to direct an inquiry or appropriate proceedings under the Act and to issue directions to educational institutions and officers or authorities under its control where necessary or expedient to carry out the purposes of the Act or give effect to its provisions, rules, or orders.

Institutions and officers are required to comply with such directions.

no precedent was cited.

The departmental inspection had found the unauthorised-absence allegation false, and the records indicated that the petitioner had been deputed to another school by the same management.

The department’s reports also recorded that the management had not submitted the proposal or responded to the authorities’ requests.

Against that background, the Government’s rejection of the revision did not provide reasons addressing the petitioner’s grievance or the material on record.

The Court held that this failed to discharge the duty under Section 133 to consider the matter and issue appropriate directions.

However, it left the petitioner’s entitlement to grant-in-aid for determination according to law.

It remanded the matter for the Government to consider the records and issue appropriate directions concerning the petitioner’s admission to grant-in-aid, if he was entitled to it in law, within eight weeks.

In light of the withdrawal of recognition of the Gudnapur school, the Court also directed the management to permit the petitioner to report to its Anavatti school and pay him the salary to which he was legally entitled.