Channabasappa K Shivashampar vs The Kuvempu University on 21 November, 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 213" DAY OF NOVEMBER 2008
BEFORE

THE HONBLE MR.-JUSTICE H.BILLAP?A   

.E__E'1__'_Y.V__1:3_E.1\l;

1. Channabasappa K. Shivfihampar, " -- ..
aged about 43 years, *  
s/o.Ka1akappa,  

working as S.D.A.,     
University B.I).T. Collsghoi' Enginsexfigxzg,
Davanagcrc -577 004.  '  *  L    _

2. G. M §'RajashcKh."az'.aiah;-. n é " ,

aged about £331 year'-a,' ,.  '

working as"S.{).A.,' _  ' 

 B.I")..'I_'_, College of Eng'neeri11g,

 '   

  

ag*c-1a%aboé:t45%
w0zjldng.asL"1f3rpist,
University B.I).'I'. College of Engineering,

   '~DavaIiagé:rc-577 004.

 T "4;VSo'wb1mgralakshmi,
-   aged about 45 years,
'   _,w§t)rl-ring as Typist,
" University B.D.T. College at' Engineering,

Davanwrc~577 004. .. PETITIONERS

1/

WRIT PETITION No. 1590512005 (~33:   *



(By Sri.K.Giridhar, Adv.)

AND :

1. The Kuvempu University,
Rep. by its Registrar,
'Jnanasahyadri',
Shanaraghatta -- 57745 1 ,
Shimoga District.

2. The University B.D.3";"  ~  
Davanagexe-57'? 0£)4.  '    ..RESPONDEN'PS

(By  Adv, for R-1; &
R-2 served, --.b1'it.  

This Writ   under Articles 226 and
227 of the Con'stitfutio1i=--of'India, praying to quash the
order dt.4'e=.3-2004 7._me.de by the University (R-1)
prodftxeesl  as Amzexure-'A' in so far as the

 V'    and direct the University to
 ,treat  as University employees from the
 __reept.'c1_ive - dates )they joined duty in Government

eefaiees «it:..the'respecfive posts held by them as per the
orders of a;j.jvpointment produced herewith as Anx.'F' to
'H' 7&nci'J"and award to them all the consequential

   '~».benefi"i;:.s__  those dates filciuding monetary benefits
' .,a11d._eez1iority, promotion etc.

  'l'his Writ Petition coming ox: tbr prelim' inazry

 in 'B' Group this day, the Court made the
" following:

19/



ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the Q. ~

2. In this writ petition under K V’

227 of the Constitution of Inciia,

called in question the o1*da§j~ by

the first respondent

3. By the the

first mspondefit’:-. H peti!1onem’ as

Univeisity to the result of the writ

appeal. 2008 has held that

others are the employees of the

the first respondent is bound by the

Vtifiis Court passed in W.P.No.18399 to

Therefore, the respondents are dmected’ to

* pefifionas as University employees and yam:

benefits.

(M

4. Accordingly, the writ petition is

The respondents are directed to consider M

and other benefits of the petitioners gig:

from the date of receipt of a copypof

Bss.