Sri B S Moksha B.Sc., B.Ed vs State Of Karnataka on 25 November, 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA  R 

DATED '1'I-IIS THE 25?" DAY   

BE1§'0RI.:7.._ 
THE HONBLE MR.  
WRIT PETITION NQ'.'9'0;333/V2096 {sl%RE'Sj

BETWEEN:
SR1 B s MoI:91*IA;; BfSc,:, R':.Ed:}'OIO'OAI" A 

s/0 SR1 E3~P*S__H1I_\_IALI fQARRA,  .

AGED ABCQVU'-I_'_ 24.52  I  *  
ASSISTANT:   

SR1 VIDY.AN'I£)H_I"HIGH"SCHOOL,

KOND"AJJ_I (A'1':  

TURVEKERE TALE;IK,_.  I

TUMKUR DIsTRIC'r. A  PETITIONER

 *  _ [Bj,f':'S1:§--..:h/I .5 BIIAGWAT, ADV.)

I.  s'=IfAT1§ OF KARNATAKA.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,

I *  REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,

s-»'- " =

 SECONDARY EDUCATION,
MSBUILDING, BANGALOREJ.

THE COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BAI\IGALORE-~ I.



4

2. Citing the aforesaid proceedings, _petiti'oner"s

Counsel submits that though the appoint1nenft"~o4t'bthegf

petitioner was approved with effect  

Annexure«B), yet again the uipetitioner-'--s grigevance is';

his appointment ought to havexbbeen Vapp':'roved':§from the
date on which he w'a4_s'j«.originally:«lappointedfin the said
post as a Science teacher,   "i'sV'alVs;of"his contention

that the peti_tioi¥:er was ivvorkifng since inception against

the pos't"ei.vh'ich  o1figinali'yiVi<ri'eant for scheduled caste.
and cvonseque_ntfi;c)b th_e'-conditions being relaxed as per

the _ Gov'e.rnmen.._tA7,_sOrder dated 21.4.1995. the

 revs_p'onden,ts could-«'not have given any effect to the

  but ought to have been given

  of initial appointment as was done in the

 case "o_f'1-aforementioned persons namely D.P.Kaiegowda

if 'T  andfSadashivappa.

3. Though the above submission is opposed by the

learned Government Advocate for respondents by

.3»

I.

6

are directed to give the petitioner also

benefits that were given to the aforesaici__tV*.re 3

The compliance shall be effectectitt
from the date of receipt of a copy iofth is orrier: Q’

Writ Petition stands”x”d.i_é’,pQseci”‘-of above
terms. _ %
Sd.e___

2 V, “Yin,