High Court Karnataka High Court

Mangalore University By Its … vs Dr R Shashidar S/O P Ramanath Rao on 15 February, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Mangalore University By Its … vs Dr R Shashidar S/O P Ramanath Rao on 15 February, 2010
Author: K.Sreedhar Rao Gowda
E

IN THE RIGII COURT OF KARNATAKA. I3A_bF9C{}S[LOVRBj  .

DATED THIS THE: 15% DAY" Off  20m _  1'

PRESENI ' _ _
THE HONBLE MR. JLIS-'r._I___CIa   O.
THE HONBLE MR.  I§.;ON.i(SI§IUQoPAI;IIVG0wDA

W.A. No"; 35 OR 2004 {S} .. 
BETVVEENS _    _  -  *
MANGALORE;Ui*IIIv"II:.RSI'nr,'~'  _   
BY ITS RE3G*iS'['_Ri9gR;;. " .;      »
MANGALORE.;i31\.:¥IVE*RSIT&f'.. ' . =
Ix/IIAINGAIJA C2ANG1Qf£HI?.I';  ' "
MANQALoRE.;5~--_V 574 199.' ~  '

{BY SR1 L. SRIIIIVASA OBABTJ; ADVOCATE}

I. _; DR. R. SHASHIDAR,
  S»/AO.»I.P.RAM13IN2'aTH RAG.
 AGE:4§V1_AJOR,
 _ "1IQRKI.NG AS CHAIRMAN Si READER,
'- ._ . DERARf1jI.»I'IaNT OF ENGLISH,
" MANGAi;ORE UNIVERSITY.
  GANGOTHRI.
..MIAI\lGALORE.

VA :§_'~   THE S'i'A'TI53 OF KARNATAKA

 BY ITS SECRETARY.

EDUCATION DEIPAR'l'E\/IENT,

M.S. BUILDING.

BANGALORE - 1.

RESPCNDENTS

(BY SRI T.P. SRINIVAS, AGA FOR R2]
{R1 SERVED}

I-



1.

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/8.4:
KARNA’I’AKA HIGH comm ACT PRAYING TO ;”sE3:~.As1pE

THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT” EE’i?1’l*;o’i=e

NO20939/1997 DATED 10/08/1999.

SREEDHAR RAO, J., delivered the’zfo11–gwing:’~– ._
JUDqgENT” ”

This appeal is coming on for j}f1earlng–._tlaisliltlay’,

The learned Single Judgel4ll’11,::t’ne_Wrif’fleiiiionfias well in
the Review Petition has2fourielmVea’iegofieaI1y tvhiatllvvthere was
only single post of kin. the Mangalore
University. Therefore, roster would not

applyjxrlien p§§£’;’ In this regard a reliance is
placeclaon’ the Supreme Court in the ease of
POST GRADUATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION
AND . x EHANDIGARH –VS- FACULTY

ASSOQLATION ‘B–«’OTHERS, reported in AIR 1998 so

~ ‘.76V”iof the review order states as follows:

V l apart. the view taken by this Court:
solitary post of Professor in the post

A llgreiduate of English cannot be reserved for any
H Scheduled Tribe candidaie is supporied by the
decisions of the Supreme Court in ‘POST
GRADUATE INSTITUTE OF JMEDICAL
EDICATION AND RESEARCH, CHADIGARH Vs.
FACULTY ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS’ (AIR
1998 SC 1767) and ‘DR. CHHKRADPIAR

el/

‘1
\

PASWAS VS. STATE OF BIHAR AND o’rHE.j1es:’j<éew~..”{:)e:tei£eior1.

“e”Tfréere1″fi93 _rio, meri{i’_ ‘ii: the application for

:c:c:n’ci”c>n’czi_iVc)ri’V”€3Tf ifhe review pezziiion, both

Q]”wru’ch are iiceere-bgdtsnltssed. No costs.

View iéiim-n;’Vby the learned Single Judge is sound

aricicp’mper”2=git:’.– does not call for interference. The appeai is

€iAisfi1issed;e:”i_

NM*

& m *3

fir iii gm
Efiilffi} “Q4
QME &
W1

-m

a:,m;.-4x .–»w».g?

Eicmii