High Court Karnataka High Court

Ashok S Wadeyar vs The Chairman on 26 February, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Ashok S Wadeyar vs The Chairman on 26 February, 2009
Author: N.K.Patil And Nagaraj
WA N663 2352039

IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA V    '
cmcurr BENCH AT QEIARWAD' = Tlj J  . _ 
DATED mm THE 26" DAY  F;¥33§§UARYs..:2O0§'  _ 
P1¢$3h:n'1' '»._    " V ~ " :1" 
THE HOIVPBLE MR."._J_UsfrIcE- B:l.I£.P1fi::l1 L '*v  
TI-IE HOZWBLE rei2?..qUs*ricE-- g_1%§ALx memm
wan' Af_?__§A!;H(}.'5  ztieéz; 

Between:

Ashok S.Wad€=j?B1';."\.V '*~ V" * 1'

Age:36 years, V  

S/9 S.S.\Rr'aé"e3Ia;i;

C/0 B.B.I;3ingi,. 

Head P0st'tOffi.ce,' _ V .   __

§agaII<<3%:~S8'I?_ 131.   _  APPELLANT

(By Sri.:wI§}».B;  'A;dv$'

'- A KPSC; Uclygt-g Sadagna,
»§3_a11g&}.c§r§:--~56O 00 L

~  jv ' «.  Thé .$¥§;cretary,

 " VTKPSC, Udyog Sadazxa,
x _B$3:1gaior€:--56{) 90 1.  RE8?0NDENTS

'5 This appeai is 1316:} 21/ s 4 of the Karnataka. High Court Act,

 J -- f;s:+ay1:1g to set aside the .60&31/ 2009.

This appeal coming an fer orders, this day, N.K.Pat:§.1 J.,
deiivered the follawing:



WA N0.6123»'20i}9

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is directed agai11st::.f}»A1Aebf:)4zi.’zse;f*_j(i;’é§1;ed.:4i«2′.v.{)%21.2.0’f)9 *

passed in W.P.No.60631/20()9. . In téhe “said

peiit1’oner-appellant herein had vfo1’r. _a”* to the
respondenb Commission to H . vpermit the
petitioner-appe11a1r£ to the Gazetted
Probationers Gmlifi ‘en-A by the
respomients. by the learned
Single as stated supra. Being
aggrieved happellant felt necessitated to

present the 21×1 )§.)’eV:a1;.”!e_ Qeelking appmpriate relief.

he-ve’s– lesrzzed counsel for the apyefiant

rvnge .

After ieajefui perusal -:31″ the order impugned éated

iri’,:2′,”G2.29o9″‘;5assee in w.p.No.e063:/2099, we do not find any

4er:*er_ef or i1lega.litjy as such committed nor any good grounds

out by the appeiiant to interfere with the order passed

B5} the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge after

V. evaluation and after affording opporttmity to the parties has helci

WA No.6l23;”2E}09

that, when the key answers are prepared by expeI’tS..

cannot substitute its own opinion azldthat s1;4_:¢¢’kéy.;.z;swV¢£s.. x

are published by the respondents
the key answers, the Court hae_”etQ..dee}ir1’e t.o_
petition. The said reasoning Judge is
just and proper. It is of law, held in host
of judgments of that, in academic
matters, the answers wiii be
prepared by in the respective field.
‘§’herefor6:’. H ~ _i:;ttettere 21:1 acafiemic matters.
Henee, t}1e’1ee;mVed has rightly declined. to entertaitl

the re1ief_sou§I3′;t thettetppeflant. We dc) not find any gm

‘VVgzwauxztikozi’-LVjustificattieii”to consider the relief sought by the

the Writ Appeal filed by the appeilant is

__t0 as misconeeived. Accerdixzgly, it is

sdie

Iuégfi

3&5′?

ffiégég

Jm/~