High Court Karnataka High Court

P Ranganath S/O Late Puttappa vs Govt Of Karnataka on 18 July, 2008

Karnataka High Court
P Ranganath S/O Late Puttappa vs Govt Of Karnataka on 18 July, 2008
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA, BAN

SATEI) THIS THE 18"?" DAY 05' JULY,_i§:f}'G'$.'_ {: L?  _

BEFORE   

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE'   

WRIT ;F'E'I'I'I'ION N¢ 2'a§92L  2Qo%:é %({" SECRETARY TO ;:>EPAm'MENT
' --..QF"U"f_33AN"' DEVELOPMENT, M.S.BUILDINGS

' % .__BANG_ALORE-- 1

T}:gi'i~c0MM1ss:0NER
* BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORPFY

% KUMARA PARK WEST, BLORE~'20

M N GNANEESH
MAJOR, WORKING AS F.D.A.

CLASS OF I18. 3,
WORKING AS BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT

AUTHORYFY, KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE~2O

. . . PEPYFIONER.



G THEJAKUMARI
MAJOR, WQRKING AS F'.D.A.
OF E.S.E.

WORKING AS BANGALORE OEVELOPME}. 2

AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST
BANC}ALORE-20

N GANGADHARA 
MAJOR, WORKING AS F.D.A'.;

OFFICE ()1? 13.3.»;     1

WORKENG AS BANGALO,:éE.O%OEvELOPMENir  

AUTHORFPY, KUMARA ymazg !}§{EST'~ O 'O O ;
BANGAL0RE»20g_    

O ASWATHANARAYANA'     
MAJOR, WO_RKIN_C% AsjF.O,A.     O
OFFICE    .  

WORKIE§C§= Bk;N(§é;LORE i;>E:vELOPMENT
A[J"f"H'()1§"I?I'Y,"i%§'LfI\iI--AI%A PARi{ WEST
Bz:NGALO:2E:¢V2OL~,_(~O_   O

M O' sRINNAS1$zs&UE§'I'iiY
MAJORTIN' AGE  ' "
4::;:é'E=*1CE: C)P'.__£T3HAIRMAN

~ _ ~-'.O__F'E;'RSQNAL SECTION
, «, A WC)£?KJ,NG AT BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT
= _  A _ mj*1*1:i'ORr_2*':{, KUMARA PARK WEST
" , * EAVNGALQRE-20

M R:VE1§'KA'f'ESH

MAJQR IN AGE

 ' = =.Q§'F'ICE OF DEPUTY SECRETARY4
=  WORKING AT BANGALORE QEVELOPMENT

AUTHORYFY, KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-2Q

RAJANNA '

MAJOR IN AGE

F'.D.A, WORKING EN THE OFFICE OF THE
WEST DIX/ISKJN, B.D.A.



KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALOREQO

10 K M RAVISHANKAR

MAJOR IN AGE

f3'.D.A, {R 85 R SECTION)
B.D.A.

KUMARA PARK WEST T.
BANGALORE420 " '

  1izES;?c5NDENTS.

(By Sri T.P. SRINIVASA;'~GO\_fT'§}1§i{. FOR 121;" 
SR1 K. KRISHNA, FORRZ. '--  A;   A. 
12.3 TO 12.10 --~SER\fE_Q._ ' .;_ I '

'i'HIS WE §*:Q3:D ;i.INDE§R"'Ai} 2T1C§..ES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSf1"i'TL1f}'I--£7)-133FRAYIN-G'--«5FQ_ QUASH THE ORDERS
PASSED B'i'._R'%2;j_WDE._VAI§'N.F'*'D??.28~114997 AND ANN.G

}3T.3»7--;2{}G2, ;}?~Ro:re:0Ti1~.{e THERESPONDENTS E ':'o :0.

DIRECT'R-1-&.2'*{fO._(;0NsIDER THE CLAIM OF THE
PETITIQNERSA 1-33' PF<{)1\&1.0T§NG HIM TO THE POST OF'
F'.¥3.A._ FROM 3.9.3. '=FR'OM THE DATE OF HIS RASSING
DEPA_§R'I'MENTAL-._. EXAMINATION FROM 1987-88 AS PER

 *HIsv%%sE'.I§vIG€ REGESTER AND GRANT ALL THE SERVICE
 B£f}MEF3f'FS_  THE PETITIONER FOR WHICH HE IS
3;JN1)L:R THE SERVICE RULES.

'X ,M%'TH1SL'%I%®rrrI0N COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS

V V} ' 9AY;*--*m12.f CSURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The petitioner is questioning Annexures F and G,

T pziistjant to’ which respondents 3 to 10 are promoted as

5 First Division Assistants {FDAs).

41/

¢

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was Working as

Second Bivision Assistant in the office of 1_:he:’~.._:eeeond
respondent Bangalore Development -Tlbe
petitioner joined the ofiice under
the Government to provide sezvioes
famiiy. The ease of the petitioner wasa
freedom fighter. Sufliee it that. i I’e’svgondent–2 had
taken certain persons’ on it thereby provided

employment to-::«”i’}’_1e in their office.

S1ibseqfL:e:*iti3;.: in the same manner
the eeI’viees«of the’ was airready regularised by the

orderef the s After his regularisation, the salary

.iiv.”$VQ\Ls”i~ii’§x{§d in message of Rs. 490-550 with effect from

Vi petitioner became a regular employee of

resi[)ende11t}§i.The petitioner, as {LEI the Rules, completed

“‘–._VVVz’;1*.1Ae Tdepxartznental examinations conducted by the KPSC. The

_ examination result was announced and the petitioner has

passed all the departxnezital examinations. Copies of the

” ieertifieates are to be found at Annexures D} to D6.

Apparently ignoring the claim of the petitioner, respondentfl

has promoted respondents 3 to 16 to the post of The

said promotion is questioned in this petition. ‘ ‘ i’ V

3. I have been taken through tile rei1e:;§3_;t*i st. _.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is on”;1{ia1.1fw.ith A

the promotees, in as he the
departmental examinations. is that his 01211111

is not considered. has sought for
quashingiioi” But, however, certainty

that other request which is made by

the pstitionei’._:that for promotion to the post of

V. is” considered on the basis of passing of

examinations, to my mind, there should

noizvm a;€1y.i::ii)edhnent in issuing such a direction.

§i,_V’ ilonsequently, the following order is passed:

” and 2 to consider the eiaim of the petitioner for promotion tofl

Petition stands disposed of directing respondents 1

/’

K

the post of FXDA. having regard to his

passing of the departmental examinations. S ” ‘ K V. 3 V’ ‘
R1118 is made absolute to t11e:-axis-ntA’ ‘A 2
Mr. T.P. Srinivasa, ieamed (Visa

memo of appearance within f0u.zfi1?eeké.. . ‘ A V’

999