Provisions of Karnataka Education Act on retrenchment of employees applies even for unaided and linguistic minority dental colleges: High Court

October 24, 2023 08:22 pm | Updated 08:22 pm IST - Bengaluru

A view of the High Court of Karnataka.

A view of the High Court of Karnataka.

The provisions of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, related to service conditions such as retrenchment and resignation of employees in educational institutions applies even to the unaided linguistic minority dental institutes, the High Court of Karnataka has said.

The court said that Section 98(1) of the 1983 Act, which states that an education institution will have to take prior approval from the competent authority, that is from the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, in case of need for retrenchment of any employee of the institution, is also applicable to the unaided institutes.

“If the legislature intended to exclude unaided educational institutions, it would have in so many words said it...,” the court said.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Prasanna B. Varale and Justice Krishna S. Dixit passed the order while dismissing an appeal filed by Rajarajeshwari Dental College and Hospital, an unaided linguistic minority institute.

The institute had questioned a single judge’s order directing it to reinstate Sanjay Murgod, who was a professor in the Department of Oral Pathology and Microbiology, as he was retrenched from the service in September 2021 without prior approval from the competent authority. The judge had reserved liberty to the institute to seek prior approval from the competent authority to relieve the professor from service.

Not enlisted in the excluded category

Pointing out that the 1983 Act spells out the exclusion of institutions from the applicability of the Act, the Bench said that minority educational institutions, as defined under Section 2(21), are not enlisted in the excluded category of institutions.

While declining to accept the contention of the institute that it was governed under the provisions of the Dentists Act, 1948, the Bench observed that “the provisions of 1948 Act, in essence, intend to regulate the standard of professional education whereas, the provisions of sections 97 and 98 of the 1983 Act in substance intend to secure the service conditions of employees of educational institutions”. The Bench also noted that the 1948 Act does not regulate the service conditions of the employees with the institutions.

Top News Today

Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in


Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.