Sri B H Javalli S/O Hanumanthappa vs The Commissioner on 9 December, 2010

 

2

Bangalore.

{NJ

The Joint Director of Public Inst,ructio_n"s"',<l    
(Admn}, Nrupathunga Road, -' " ~  l
Bangalore .

3. The Deputy Director of "  

[Admn], Davanagere District, 
Davanagere ~ 4. * l'

4. Sri. Kumaraswarny,   '  _ 
Working as First Div Assist'ani:',--.Govt PV."U;'College,

Santhebennur;  '_    
y Channagiri Taluk 3577-'--.2'  

_   Respondents
[By ,f_AGA)

Qu'ash";-V tlié: "Order Dt.'l6.11.10, passed by the
Karna.tak_a. Ad_mi_nist1*ative' Tribunal in vide application
No.6956/10; filedbyvthie.Applicant/Petitioner vide Ann--B,
81 furthergtoi allcwthe Application N0.6956/ 10 filed by the

Applicant/'I?etitioner'=_8:"to Quash the Order Dt.1l.ll.10.
passeds..by the R1, by vide its Order No.C5(1_} Varga

 ..V_'Mafrpad.u: v0A5:2OIU¥'Ill Vide Ann--A5.

  ..4"pet'ition coming on for Orders, this day.

A .' delivered the following:

ORDER

.v:l”A_Tl1is Writ petition is filed challenging the order

passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal

dt.. 16«11-10, declining to interfere with t.he»-{order of

transfer, on the ground that the
alternative, efficacious remedy by x

before the Cadre Management l

2. When the petitioner anv.alter’*1a’tiye, efficacious
remedy, first the pe’t~i.tionerWhas to-._exhaust”vthat remedy
before he approachlesf: Administrative

Tribunal.

we do not find any
ground ‘l the order passed by the
Karnataka Tribunal. Hence, the writ
petition’ .

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

Mgn/-

vay of’ a. _petiti’o.n