High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt Geeta D/O Muragayya Kulkarni vs The Addl Director on 14 November, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Smt Geeta D/O Muragayya Kulkarni vs The Addl Director on 14 November, 2008
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAE

DATED mas THE mm mm op NQVEMBER   _

BEFOREWV

THE HOINPBLE MR.JUsTicE=.ARAMT§a;O'H.AHN' REE-'iyfi  1'

WRIT ¥'E'1'I'£'ION No.3}251 c':~Fg_>_o3   R
BETWEEN; 1' 'V V V"  V' 1
1 sm' GEE-TA D)' §"'MUIéAr_}A3?m..VVVK1;;,1<AI§M
AGED 52 YEARS,' 'Qcc%_13Ap:K E.Ml?L{)_YEE

uc0vV.1§szxre"'§5:, 3 V - ~-- 
 R"/"0 J.13;mAi{A1.GALL1

 BELGAL'*M._  " 

yaw AT {3~I)"LBA.

(By_Sri.'P1RAVEEif§ K1_iM.A'R RAIKOTE, ADV.)

    MMMMM 

'  'vTHE~}§'E)DL DIRECTOR

'  OF POLICE
c1v_i--_1. RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT DIRECFORATE
,1'£3AN..r3AL0RE

 AA 2 " -THE DISTRICI' CASTE VERIFICATION coMMm'EE

BY ITS CHAIRMAN
DEPUTY COMMISSIGNER
BELGAUM DISTRICT, BELGAUM.

T 3 UCO BANK

BY ITS MANAGER

$139121? MARKET

GU LBARGA 5 AK
{J

 h  PETITIONERS.



   post <2

4 TAHASILSAR

BELGAUM  RES§_i5O?€»l3'}?1I¢f'F$;' 

(By Sri. R.K. HA'I'I'!, HCGP FOR R13

RESPONDENTS 2, 3 3:. 4 DELETE?) VEDE <;";o_L:rjré1¥v 'QRBER

DATED 14.-11«20o3)

THIS W.P.IS FILED U5-¥l3*.ER AV.’i?*£’I’V(3LES;32 :;.’-tivifia. 2:37

THE CONSTITUTION ms’ INU!A””v.PRAYING ‘TS, QEIASH THE’
IMPUGNED LETTER OF R-1 DATE}? NIL ‘VIBE AISi;NEXURE-

THIS PETITION COMi-Naif <'1):N'T_ SGR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THISVDAY, '£'HE_COIJRf}' I-4AD'E 1,';-'HE FOLLOWING:

~ f Vy" GREEK ——–

gf’-he’ of M/s. Uoo Bank at its
Supczf secured employment to a

~1-‘fig to belong to a Scheduled Caste. When

L’ Vfhb’ that regard was sen’: for verification, it was

iigfiéed petitioner did not belong to the Scheduled

éxgdvaccoréingly, proceedings were initiated which has

V’ ” nfiiially fesuited in a proceeding pending before: the Appellate

under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled

u “Tribes And Backward Classes {Reservation ofApp<3int1nc13ts,

etc), Act, 1990, (for short 'Act? and that, during the

Mk

pendency of the appeal, it is aileged that the 13* respondent -~

Additional Director General of Poiice, civ~;:,,j~-.1§ig31ts

Enfoteeinent Directorate, Bangaiore, Without»

law, addressed a communication dated .

the UCO Bank -~ the petitio1:.ter's emp2o3{e§r,'«'eto.i

terminate the petitioner then

Hence, this Writ petition.

2. There is considejrabie fijrce submission of the

1ea1netit”‘coi.;:r;,seI’:’:*ft’or “the. ‘ petitrleztier that the respondent,
Withotat anthoiitfof a cotnmunication to the
Bank toVVV’tetfininateVt;*;Le’.;se1vices of the petitioner. Learned

is out to any gzrovision of law by which

‘ would have the jurisdiction to address such

H and direct the employer to terminate the

the setvices of the Bank. The directions

2 , ”isst1ed in the communication Annexure-“C” smacks of

‘ ess and is tmsustamable. In the result, this Writ

‘ V’ “petition is allowed. The communication dated ‘nil’

Annextu:’e~”(3” of the respondent is quashed. It is made clear

that if the petitioner does not succeed in the progeedings

xeiating to the vmification of the Caste Certificate issued

her, Shit Wouli not be cntifled to continue to b.o1d.__the ‘ii ‘

which was mserved for the Scheduleti Caste.

KS