High Court Karnataka High Court

Dr Ganapathi Bhat vs State Of Karnataka on 19 June, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Dr Ganapathi Bhat vs State Of Karnataka on 19 June, 2009
Author: S.Abdul Nazeer
IN THE mar»; COURT 0? KARNATAKA AT BA3%i§A2;£i:1i:-$5 '  "

[}A'I'ED'i'HIS THE 19TH DAY~'O'F'*JU'N §,  V':  

BEFCJRE 
THE HONTSLE MR.aUs*§*Ig:j:'E.V_s.AéD;:L   
Miscw. No.v293§%:;_20.G_9 .' 
V  u V 

W.--§>. No,.56QSji2(}{)S._{S§;RE$§=" "

EETWEEN: % 

1. Bhat  *
Sg"é;"'f'axf{éimcsi£%é:ra"i?>1iat
Aged _about: 4.5} "'j;."&a-rs "' - ..._
Le."c_tur::r in V' " 
5.-iri ifiuiga Pa1amc:3hwaii'£'emp1e
First {}3j3r1:=. C::=_He3ge,'«B§i3.fel
;?v1:a,tA1ga101.:a»_S'?"4 1.48
 '5'.§).VKL;'3iS1:I'_£CtL" A _____ .. v

V' * , VBhaSkajc "V.._Bhat
 S,f;§:«..¢Lé1tcj"[-XI?-2nkata1'a1na1:a Bhat
A '=.Agc.»:i iiboijzxt 49 years
 Lecvmréjas in Sanskrit
" Sri Dxirga Parameshwari Temgxie
 F'EE.:fs£ Grade Gcyllege, Kate].
 'A .-._M.emga:om~5?4 143
V. _ 'D.§{.Dist:rict.' ..(Petiti<:mers

" (33% Sri K.G0v:indaIa§, Advocate)

 



This Misc.W.No.2934]2009 is filed under Order 1 Ruk
10 {1.E".{3., far impkading the proposcd appiicazffi as
respondent No.5. 1 

This petition along with MISC.W.No.f££134»!_f£{}G:€§
coming on far srdcrs this day, the Court made 1 *

The applicant in Misc.W.No.2934j

devotee of the “Sri Durga pémgeshwafi ,Te:g:’;’s:g;:. *

ELK. District. The conegc in
Committee of the tempit:”;._ 7 _

2. It is th¢ <3a,_sc Qf Administrator
has been of the tempic. 011
an caxfljcgv for Chaxitablc
End0\19?;*:§1eI1tA$A v…fl.:-ef Administrator to pay huge
arrears of the College in question

at " scale. The applicant has mm

an interim order was yanted in that

pendency of thc: writ petiticm, most of the

in the said College agm-ed to motive the

's1 'me State Pay soak. Rcconiing the same, the said

V' irscfifion was disposed of on QSLOZHS. The petitioners

1%

in this writ pctitixm are respondents 7 as 14 in the

Writ petition. Anncxun:-J order has been _

payment of salary at the State Go\fg§:nmcnt'AV1'!1;é"»»

petitioners have challenged the

gig?"

‘J

are required to he paid ‘

3. The krarncd C«ca1;.nsc1’VAfc3fwt’i:;c”agp1iééixt-gutgkxztits that
the Administrator Government is
looking after The applicant
being a to protect the

4. The ;pctif1’oncrs has opposed

the impleadjzng app1iga:;i9:;_. isicontcndcd that the 11’s is

between petitioners. Therefore, the

“3.ppI1:'{<':3j3t:Tnmed not be made a party to this Wxit

«statfid above, at the instance of the applicant, an

""-";z1:ezn::n";;:£1ér was granted in w.P.No.14195/mos, staying

'.Tjv.tAhe"e§i)é.§7fi1:ax1t of salaxy to the petitions: herein and other

\?\3

teachers of the school in quxstion at the revised
scale. It cannot be dispumd that the applicant is '
the temple and he is inmmsted in 'iéjncis x
the temple. In my vicw, the applic-$11
the petition. Accordingly, Ma_~ec.yv.N$.2§34; j .
and the petitioncrs are dmsctcd' as
the 5:1: respondenj: tn' "Tire are
diutctcd to makt: {muse title.
Objecti<}né.;'j:;:i:§" 'to' within four
weeks. .

saga