1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA DATED THIS THE 24tF DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2010 PRESENT THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE N.KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SUBHASH B.ADI CCC NO.1434 OF 2009 ij,,iN L:J r BEIWEEN I. SHARANAPPA NATIKAR S/0 BALLAPPA NATIKAR L AGE: MAJOR 0CC: ASST. TEACHER GURUPADA SHIVACHARYA HIGH SCHOOL GORTA (B) BASAVAKAIXAN TQ: DIST: BIDAR .. COMPLAINANT (By Sri. AMRESH S ROJA, ADVOCATE) AND I. DR.NAMBUDERI THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE. 2. ThE COMMISSIONER FOR PUBLIC INSTURCTIONS NEW PUBLIC OFFICES NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE 2 3. M.H.DONNUR THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS BIDAR DISTRICT, BIDAR 4. SMT.SHEETAMMA W/O SUDHAKAR TIlE INDIRA GANDHI HIGH SCHOOL AURAL), TQ:DIST: BIDAR REP BY ITS PRESIDENT 5. THE SHIVALINGESHWAR HIGH SChOOL HIREJEWARGI TQ: AFZALPUR DIST: GULBARGA REP BY ITS PRESIDENT. ... RESPONDENTS (By Sri.MJWMAR, AGA FOR Ri TO R3) CCC FILED U/S 1 1&12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT PRAYING TO PUNISH THE ACCUSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. This CCC, coming on for orders, this day, N.KUMAR J., made the following: ORDER The complainant’s grievance in this complaint is that, a direction was issued by this court to accommodate him as a teacher in any of the aided institutions run by the private management in Bidar District and in pursuance of the direction, such appointment orders were issued. When he went to report to duty in those private educational institutions, he was 3 not permitted to joint duty arid therefore, inspite of said direction, he could not he accommodated in any other private educational institutions. We see from the order. in the first place the writ petition is dismissed, as a concession these directions are issued. In terms of the directions, admittedly. the Government has issued him an appointment order appointing him in private educational institutions, if in those institutions he was not permitted to join, then, it is open to the petitioner to take appropriate action, contempt is not a remedy, as the government has obeyed the orders of this court. In that view of the matter, we see no merit in this complaint. Accordingly, it is rejected reserving liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedy in accordance with law. Sd! JUDGE Sd/ Crn/- JUDGE