G.C.Balaraj vs The State Of Karnataka Rep By Its … on 17 December, 2009

.-  -  -....... ...- ..............u. mun-I wumr or ICARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COUR'

38

39

40

21.2

I _ SR1; Z,Sv..,:PRASANNA.
. S,/fOI_SRJ.~'P.K. SUKUMAR.

ON DEPUTATION TO KARNATAKA STATE
POLICE HOUSING CORPORATION.
BANGA_LORE.  
IN w.P.N_Q.9o9';2o'09
SR1. R.V. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH. ~   
S/O LATE VENKATRAM, 
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.  .-- ~ "
WORKING AS ASSISTANT ENGI'N«EER, , _ .
ON DEPUTATION TO KARNATAI<;AI.S'TA_TE. 
POLICE HOUSING CORPORATION ' *
BANGALORE. 9-. k_' :";,_ , _»
  IN W..P;'N0--,91U/2009'
SR1. N.P. BALAI,I{RISI~INA;@ _  ' 
S /O LATE H.M. PUTTASWAMYL'-»
AGED ABOUT 4"Z_'YEARS., .    *- _
WORKING AS ASSITS"I*AI-.IT=E'NG'INEER.
ON DEPUTATIONWTO vBANc;AL;O.RE~~..'w,A;'rER
SUPPLY AND SE?-'WE'f'<2'§CE'BV0APd)~:. *
  _   
I<ANAI<APU.RA T"A;L.U'I~:.,_   .

'I _ .;   » ¢   .. I ' INW.P.NO.911/2009
SR1, G=..S'.' SAIy1_Pz«\T"'II_ KUM.ARf

/O "LATE SRIRANTAIAB..
AGED ABOUT 50"YEARS.

OEPI_CIE OF _'l"'HAE »~MANAG1NG DIRECTOR.
M /S . " -RARNATAKA "STATE CONSTRUCTION

WORKING AS~Cl;'ERl{4--CUM-TYPIST.

A "<;ORPO"RATION,DR. RAJKUMAR BHAVAN.
 B_§Al\J(}ALORE'+'5600lO.

IN W.P.NO.912/2009

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
w'ORI'ANGALORE~56000 I

 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

M/S. KARNATAKA STATE CONSTRUCTION
CORPORATION LTD. DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD.

RAJAJ INAGAR, UK

 

i
I
3
5
E'
C
3
r
C
c:
3
0
"TI
E
21
E
:3
§



IQTAIH-.. ..,.,_

I_ III count

...... \--\JUl\I 1)!' mmmnm HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH COURT or "RAE

-26-

BANGALORE -- 560010

(BY SR1. M.C.NAGASHREE, GA FOR R1-8,  V  
sRI. I3.RAMEsH 35 M.B.KANVI, ADV. RORR'9,  '
IN W.P.NO.869-875/O9) _ :  I

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE EI'I.,ED;UNDER. ARTICLEi_i"2;5éi.i.
OR THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYINO TO DIRECT THE

RESPONDENTS TO AI3sORI3.' -THE EERVICES THE

PETITIONERS IN PUBLIC WORKS DEPA’RTIM_ENT/WATER
REsOURCEs/ IRRIGATION DERA.RTNIENTs’– As PER THE
DECISION ARRIVED AT THE MEEIfI’NG”–~.OE PUBLI.C.-SECTOR
REFORMS CONIMIT’TEE.’H.ELD«’*ON ~-3.I..1.2QoI UNDER THE
CHAIRMANSHIP OF HON. CH.I’E_F ‘EIIN.IsTER_”OE KARNATAKA AND

‘THESE wRI’t:’R.ETITI;ON$’OONIINOON NOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT Iv.IADE THE ROLLOWINO:

have identical to those
in and the questions that
arise fqrdeeieioriifl also identical.

2 [II that of the matter, for the very same

order dated 10* December 2009 in
Q 16/2009 in the case of K.M.Ananda vs.

j;f~Ti1eAA State,_:t’and others, these writ petitions are also

Sd/~
Judge

REsPO’NDE’N’J%¢

i
2
5
E
G
3
(‘
C
c
E
C
“P
§
7-0
3:’
‘ii’
§