High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt V Ramamani W/O Rangarajan vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 July, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Smt V Ramamani W/O Rangarajan vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 July, 2008
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
IN THE HIGH COURT QF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE_..___

DATED THIS THE 2nd DAY 0? JULY 2003 5 f x

BEFORE

THE HQNBLE MR. JUSTICE AJ.If1T,VJ,GUN§}'AI;     H  k

WRIT PETITION NO. 18344-.,/2 2c5u5[(s»Res)k~i [ 9

BETWEEN :

Smt.V.RamamaI1i,   :
W/o.Rangarajan,   '

Aged 35 years, _    j    
R/o.KoIada  _     
Srirangapatna,::"  V    "  
Mazldya Distzrictg    ...PE'I'I'I'IONER
(By Si§i.L,_Srii1ii;aséLV__ - '

Sz*i..K._R.I€ajenc1xfa,. _Ac1vs..)

AND :

;-T;:1e {stagger 

 35' its' Sfififfitaréz,
'Dapafantznt xii' ucation,
M".S_;'B_ufl(iii1g, Barigalorew 1.

 2. The Iiirectorviif Public
- »  - .. , instructgiorx,
.  * "'{;E?r§_v11a1y Education),
'  3N(:~W_13'tg.blic Oifices,

.§&TAN:*x.tpat11unga Road,

 :f'E'he Deputy Director of

Pubiit: Inshnctions,
Mandya District, Mandya.



 the  approving the appointment of I

L"t"~""eeono1Any?  the question of the petitioner being
_  to Al' the Grant would not arise. The said
 endoreerrient is at Armexure 'M', which is impugxeci in

%   petition.

V. the petitioner submits that as on the date when the

.. 3 _
respondent No.5 to fill up the vacant post of teacher.

The petitioner submitted her applimtjon on _
January 1997 to the Secretary of respondent«§§”o}tS–‘.i’§-:

Institution. An interview was eondeuoted'””on’_’;V. 17*?

February 1997 for f”1}};ing up the pose oi’_’_’teec}1er;’ 1.1′

had fallen vacant. The _g;g1’s’ “seieoted,
appointed and she repo1’te<Vi'to" February
199'? at respflncifentg the 15*
respondent the office of the

2" respo:1d%en't;.}V?. was admitted to

permanentzV.ss£ary~ .:i9th October 2004. It

appears the 4t5*:ei spo:'1dent& issued. an endorsement

the the gound that due to certain

2. Mr.K.R.Rajendra, learned counsel appearing for

Z

‘fipparfiflfly, the impugxed endorsernent

TV nof;’~co=ns1dered What is required to be considered,
es whether the petitioner is admitted to a
‘Wnieh would fall within the category of the

T who are admitted to the permanent salary

Another factor, which has been overlooked 133;”

-4-

yetitioner was appointed, there was no eeononij-,T
measure. He further submits that the ”
admitted to permanent salary gent on d’
2004. He also submits that the

at Armexure ‘M’ does I301″. disclose thstofile poost; .si3:1ieh:’.

is held by the petitioner, $.10

3. Additional
Government respondents 1

to 4 submits doe to”‘~«eertain economy measure,

mrmanent s-aglery accorded.

4.’ ‘ :1’ have impugned endorsement at

is issued.Aby.”‘;’e_$§$ondent No.4. In fact respondent No.4

Z

-5-

(d) Compiiance in six months from the date
receipt of this order.

(:3) Rule is issued and made ahsolgte.

6. Mr.S.Z.A.Khureshi, _ n
Government Advocate appearmg
is permitted to file memo: «of ‘i’t;ur
= ~ snags

A. Q’ …..