IN TIiE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. BANGALORE
THE I-IONBLE MR. JUSTXCE RAM 3. E
DATED THIS THE 13* DAY 01+' DECEMBER zcrfja
BEFORE
MISC.W. NO. 12056 & 1.;2o57li'
IN '
W.P. NO. 1331oG'eE 2oe7(s-RES') I E
BETWEEN
V DATE OF ENTRY IN SERVICE: 22/3/78,
E SURESHS/O LATE EREG.owEA'
sEcoNDDN1s1c>N ' '
AGE:39:-,YE.;KRS, /o' A014" 'HIE LEGAL CELL
BRUHAT_"B1~'tm"{;ALC)--RE~ .M;x1{;4wg_sGARA PALIKE
N.R.SQUARE,B/':NGPLLORE,
DATFJGAOI? EN'fI'RY'-IN----SER"\FICE:2/ 12/95.
MAYANNA,¢s,?jQ.'i;p;fE.i\1;ARAYANAPEA
SDA,_AGE:36 YEARS, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
, .{SHA1\?TH£DIAGAR}B'RUTH BANGALORE
NIAHANAGARA EALIKE. MAYGHALL,
1 " RESIDENCY' BANGALORE
M DATE OF ENTRY EN SERVICE 24/ 1/95.
._ TR~v.c1~:"A1~\fDRA1AH s/0 RANGAPPA
s1)A,~7A.GE:50 YEARS, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
(§3HARALINAGAR)BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGAR
* PALIKE, MAYOHALL, RESIDENCY ROAD.
EANGALGRE,
PETITIONERS
(COMMON)
bi
£0
(By Sri : P S MANJUNATH 8: VIVEKANANDA, ADVS )
AND :
1 GOVT OF KARNATAKA " ~__ :-
BY PRLSECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, '
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPME13I'i'»V.._::"». «
DEPARTMENT .. L
M.S.BUILDING,VIKASA SOUDHAI-,A- A. 3 '
BANGALORE.
2 BRUHAT EANGALOREVMAHANAGARA.I:$ALII:E'"
BYITS COMMISSIONER. _
N .R.SQUARE, BANGALORE. -»
3 THE ADMINISTRATOR " 3
BRUHAT SPALIKE
N.R.SQUARE,_ BA;\IGALORE«..'VS»--_V_ *
4 SMTSA*\z;p,R;g_vAfrO:_SED AIMPIQEAEAING APPLICANTS:
_ I} _K.L;V1j3I'IK.'¥1"ESH
" ._ "-ASSTI"'ENG_1NEER.
A BBMP,' A'i,_'.A" 51 YEARS
VVARO No.78 (OLD 110,91)
RULAKESRINAGAR,
' .. ,BAN'GALORE.
" 'A2')'»--R;'O.MAHADEvAIA_H
: ASST. ENGINEER, BBMP
A/A 45 YEARS fij _ i
7»
WARD NO.5'7 (OLD NO.83)
C.V.RAMAN NAGAR,
BANGALORE.
LMANJE GOWDA
ASST. ENGINEER, BBMP
A/A 48 YEARS
WARD NO.162 (OLD N054)
GIRINAGAR, BANGALORE.
R. KSHASHIDHAR
ASST. ENGINEER, BBMP ,
A/A 48 YEARS " _
WARD 110.161 [OLD No.55/A3
HOSKEREHALLI
BANGALORE.
K.ANAN1:>A ~
ASST. ENGINEER. B.BMPj'= '
A/A47YEARS.'_-. L :
WARD No.3-.165=*{'QLD"NG.56)_,
GANESH f_
Bm§GALO§iS.. .7}, A
ASST. 'ENGINEER.ABB1VI.P
A/A 48 ' _ "
"C_'§./O ADTP.'"SUVARNA PARAVANIGE
_ - ES:OE_JTH},A JAYANAGAR,
A . _,13ANGA1.0RE.
'C..O1A\/§;"c3'E 1.AI«it3RASHEKAR.
A ASST. 15NG'1N1«:ER, BBMP
"A /A...49 -YEARS,
O /0 SUVARNA PARAVANIGE (SOUTH)
. LJAYANAGAR,
GALORE.
O.S.SHAN'T'HA KUMAR,
ASST. ENGINEER, BBMP Hi
IL ..' 'S
4
A/A 49 YEARS,
0/ O ADTP SUVARNA PARAVANIGE [SOUTH]
JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE.
9) SSHIVAMALLU
ASST. ENGINEER, BBMP
A/A 49 YEARS
WARD No.95 (OLD N026}
SUBASHNAGAR,
BANGALORE. : '
10) M.G.KANTHARAJ _
ASST. ENGINEER, BBMP " _ .,
A/A 51 YEARS, "
WARD No.44, MARIPPANAPALYA _,
BANGALORE. '
11) MNAGARAJ
ASST. ENGINEER, B_B1'v'EPf '
A/A 50 .
WARD NO.143,;NAI'xID:NILAYQIIT '
BANGALORE. "
(By SMT. M C. NAGASIEIREE GA FOR R1}
(BY K N'PU'TrEGOwDA;P'OR..--~R2 & R3)
(BY SR1. V S NAIK &"S1vIT:.»MANJULA N KULKARNI,
V _ ADVs"EOR. R4)
(BY.§§3Rl.=.B N SHIVARAIAU A/S FOR IMPLEADING
V' 'I ..... ..
'V T_ 12056/09 FILED UNDER SECTEON 151
"OR %C'PC'v,PRAYING TO MODIFY THE ORDER DATED
24.,.1'1.2QQ9A'i.&S"MISCIW 12057/09 FILED UNDER ORDER 1
RULE 1f0{2)""R/W SEC. 151 OF CPC PRAYING TO PERMIT
THE ~ APPLICANTS TO COME ON RECORD AS
MSPONEENTS.
THESE MISOWRITS COMING ON FOR ORDERS.
THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING :
3:3:
5
ORDER
Eleven applicants claiming to be deputationists
from the State services discharging duties ‘gthe
respondent–Mahanagara Palike, have presiente-d__’_i:4
application to be impleaded as proper _
party respondents in the writ petiitionl ;
2. Learned Sr.counsel’f_or
that in the light of the und:e’rta1-dpnglofithe i’fl–charge
Principal Secretary of» Sgeuelloplntent Department,
Govt. of Karnatalga, reCo’rd:eddt.2-4.11.2009
of this being deputationists are
sought re–posting orders issued to
otheprlvvplacesl ” so done in the middle of the
‘aea.dernic ‘rwould cause serious disruption in their
i’espectivTe[j–: farnilies affecting the education of their
children,’ hence, are necessary and proper parties to
it theproceedings. i Ki
9
ya,
a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to
repatriate the 4111 respondent to her parent department
as continuance of the deputationist in the
2nd respondent after completion of 5 years__is’ “tee K V’
Rule 50(3) and 419(3) of the KCE-§eRst::A’p’ pp
4. Having regard to tn-evjngttnre of re}ie,fs”‘:sOuglit for” V L’
in the writ petition, the app1ican_’ts”are neither.riecessa1’y
or proper parties for a de_e’isi0.n’ in thefppetition.
In the e.Ap4p12’ee§tit3Ii N0.12057/O9 for
imp1eg.’ding” — .e’rtdVu jztptgiieation Ne. 12056/09 for
modtfytttg the e:{c1et:f~ .2009 stand rejected.
Sd/~
JUDGE