High Court Karnataka High Court

S Nagaraja vs The Divisional Controller on 9 November, 2010

Karnataka High Court
S Nagaraja vs The Divisional Controller on 9 November, 2010
Author: V.Jagannathan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

Dated: This the 9th day of November 2O10_4...L

BEFORE

THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE V.JAGAN.NAT:HA_N I" I  I I

W.P.NO.16277/QOIIO {SE}   A .1; '-
BETWEEN: I  I

S NAGARAJA. I  -
AGED 58 YEARS, S/O SIDD  
HOUSE NO. 445/20/3', 14TH CROSS, 
NEAR VIJAYASAGAR I-IOTELE   n = 
LAKKASANDRA, BANGALOREPSBO 030.. j 
   .  a     PETITIONER

[By Sri s 

1. THE DiV:31QINAL« CONTROLLER,
BM T C, ADMINISTRATNE OFFICE,
BANGALO}'?EL'f' _ " 

2. ' THE ACCAOUNTS OITFICER,
"  f3___i\/I __T C, BANOA1,ORE.

' .5';  THEIMANAGING DIRECTOR.

 B M T  OFFICE.
K  SHANTINAGAR.
}3Al\IG~ALORE--27.

"  RESPONDENTS

 I [By SOIL GOVINDARAJ, ADV.)

THIS W.P FILED PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE

ENTIRE RECORDS FOR THE B.M.T.C MANAGEMENT

RESPONDENT PERTAINING THE PETITIONER THE
FOLLOWING RELIEFS AS.



2

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS BAY. THE COURT 1\;1}tDE
THE FOLLOWING:   

ORDER

The petitioner party–in–:pers.onfiv hasgcorriei–,__u;:jo .’

before this court seeking’
respondent — Corporation “ac:coVrd to the
petitioner from it¢s13o;;:uctor to that of
Assistant Traffic ground put
forward vfiétitioner has been
worltingu a long period of time and
has notheen given.lazisfgpromotion as Assistant Traffic
A oooooo 14 i

‘giiaving heard the party–in–person to the

H on perusal of the papers annexed to

the ..vGrit.Vpetiti0n, except the ‘call notice’, no other

it idocurrients are produced to show the number of

“years of service put in as conductor and what criteria

is there for being considered for the post of Assistant

2>»

sf

Traffic Inspector. Though the party-in–person placed

for my perusal an order of the Corporation

22.5.81 to submit that, though he was V’

Badali conductor, has been a;bs’o1*bed’_: on

with effect from 1.4.81, Vyet

placed as regards the re1iepffV”V–nowV. sought_: this

court.

3. if the ff_bee’:1V working as

conductor vevierc sij_n’ce””his4 “‘~Q:tppoir1trr1ent and no

only make a requestdto rtespondent-BMTC in this
regard and if at”au11i sdch.’4VI’.eprjesentation is given by
the4_.petitionier’.v the same.Vs_ha.}1 have to be considered

in ac’co1’da’nce–yvit1*i.,iaw_ by the respondent.

With’-~.._the” above observations, this petition

osedof.

=      301/:

Iudéé