The State cannot be seen to practise ‘begar’ to arm-twist aided educational institutions: Karnataka High Court  

High Court criticizes State government for withholding teacher salaries to force compliance, deems action unconstitutional. Release of grants ordered.

It is highly uncouth on the part of the State government to stop the salaries of the existing teachers, as an arm-twisting tactic, to compel an aided engineering college to obey its orders, said the High Court of Karnataka.

“This action of the State, making someone work without payment of salary, would amount to ‘begar’ and hit by Article 23 of the Constitution. The State cannot be seen to practise ‘begar’ taking shelter under an unavailable power, to arm-twist the petitioner-institution,” the court observed.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna made these observations while partly allowing a petition filed by B.V.V. Sangha’s Basaveshwara Engineering College, Bagalkot, a government-aided institution that receives grants from the Government for payment of salaries to the staff.

The college had questioned the legality Government’s June 2024 action of withholding grants for payment of salaries solely for the reason that the college did not honour the government’s order of deploying six excess non-teaching staff from BVB Engineering College, Hubballi, to the petitioner-college.

The court said the provisions of the Karnataka Education Act, the Rules governing recruitment in aided institutions, and Clause 9(A) of the Grant-in-Aid Code of the Karnataka Technical Education Department, vests power with the government to stop or withhold grant only when the aided institution fails to adhere to the government’s directions on policies with regard to reservation of various posts for SC/ST/OBCs in recruitment process, promotions, and admission of students.

The State cannot use Clause 9(A) of the Code, which empowers the government to stop grants, to compel the aided institution to obey the government’s decision on transferring/deploying employees, the Court said, while pointing out that the law very specifically states that deployment of employees can be only after both the management of the aided institutions have been ‘consulted’.

Pointing out that the Government had not consulted the petitioner-institution in terms of the law prior to deploying six staff from another engineering college despite petitioner’s repeated objection sent in writing, the court said the “transfer/deployment of employees can only happen as a consultation process and can never be a decision unipartite.”