L N Bettaswamy vs State Of Karnataka on 27 June, 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 27*" DAY OF JUNE 2008
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT J.GUN;IA f;:»~.VV   7Jjf 

WRIT PETITION N0.28374/ :3oo2%(S«Re%s) -[ Y  f 

BETWEEN :

L.N.I:3ettaswamy,  ;

Aged about40years,V   '

Monthly Rated Employec  V'    
S/o.Chikkana1ascgow§1a, _      

Inland      

U'.A.S., Hebbal,        .%  

Bangalore      ...PETI'I'IG~IER

(By  Adv.)
AND: L A X   
1:' State-'f£$i'I<;a§1;ata1§e{,'  ~~~~~ " '

 ~._Reprcscn_;t':::d 
Uajidar' S-.=:c':*:.'§:%t:.a1"3r_ tr:

The (3Qvei*:1i}1¢x'3$;'

: -   Depéufunent of . Personnel

as Adniimstrafive Reforms,

    [%%%%yy%L%BangaloiLe~k 

--.Sicit7=:n.ces, G.K.V.K., Hebbal,

  V    B_a_1_?;gaIore, represented by
'  'Fits Registrar.

  ' The Director ofiResea;rc11,

University of Agricultural

 



  the  there was some variance in the
 it  could have called upon the petitioner
  the necessary documents to Show that
h  he is the same person, who has been working in

  Department. it is also to be noticed that before fl

- 4 -
requesting the 3"! respondent to regularise his sexvioes.

But however, an endorsement is issued at Annexure

indicating that his name has been 5

‘N.N.Bet:tasWamy’ in the Muster fie’ X: o
‘L.N.BettasWamy’ in the Acquittanoe”‘*avnd hence;
case cannot be considered for .’A_VV:’i’iV’:1e

Annexure ‘D is questioned

4. I have the only
reason for petitioner for
regularisationis is variance in
the name Muster Roll as well as
the Re§’ster_ be said that the
not the 3″! respondent since

If the 3rd respondent was

%

6. Mr.S.Z.A.Khu:reshi, learned Adc1itio:.15*a:.i’:”‘._V_

Government Advocate appearing for respondent _

permitted to fiie memo of appamithin four’ , « Q I’ ‘« V

SP8