High Court Karnataka High Court

H M Manjunatha vs State Of Karnataka on 13 November, 2008

Karnataka High Court
H M Manjunatha vs State Of Karnataka on 13 November, 2008
Author: P.D.Dinakaran(Cj) & V.G.Sabhahit


IN THE HIGH COURT or KARKATAIKA AT nmmwm
mews mm THE 13″: DAY or Itovz-:ne;§ ni$%§;” V.

PRESENT

THE I-Iowans MR. an. nrxmmm, JUETICE Y

AHI 3 _ *’
mm HOR”BLE Miiqusfrrék
; Writ Petnziqg Na, _.”;ée96~g§_goo5s.s-K2;_;r1

Between:

3- . V’ ”

Aged 40
Assistant, j

2. K. 8:;}J3’appa;”– ‘

Aged. 445. §réars; _ _
4;jA”ss§,stant,”‘ ..

afe:..working as Assistants,

V ‘V [_)6§;:§’1*1:’Ixz§r;t ofPcrsom1c1

‘ and:’A§i1i3inistrative Reforms,

Soudha, Bangalore. : Petiticmers

(Bf Sii; Ramesh, Advocate)

– ;1′.’ “state of Karnataka,

Bepartznexzt of Personnel and
Administrative Referms,
Vidhana Soudha,
Ba:::2gaiore~S6(} CH} 1,
Reprcsentcé by its Chief Secretaxy.

2. R’. Ranga3:1a*£h,
Aged 25 yeam, S/0. Rangaiah,
76, Sajje Palya,
Magadi Main Road,
Vishwanezcdam Post,
Ba1:1galore~560 091.

3. M. Vinodkumar, A.

Aged 24 years, S/o. M.Muniraf3:mé1m.,
1 19, 3″‘ Cross, Jaijavaannagar, ” ”
Chikka Banasavacii, 2 ..
Banga1ore~56() G43.

4. Harsha Majya, 4_ ~ .

Aged 24 years, S] 0; ‘Venk.:.;1fI:$h Maiya; ,
927, 13* Phase, ‘ ..

Chandra I,4:;x’3}*s;-.€:_;;t, _ –
Banga1ore’~35§2’o72_. : _

5. vfinod ‘Kumar I§,.’M,_ %
Aged .22 yeéls, S[[c;%V.M22ha3ingaiah,
R] 0. Laksl31x1i;iura~«5_’?”1.’E$ I 1,
I-Iootiral Hoiéii, Taluk,
_Banga10re’R u1*;3} cfiistfict.

6! ;.~-I#I§ac11sh}” ‘ %%%%% ~ ”
Aged 37«years, S/0. Siddaramappa,

” –V.I;1;a1’3,.a_’ga;1da Post, Gunlmitkai,
€}u}§3–a;fgaf585 214. : Responéents

ffiy fifeerappa, Govtzmment Advocate for R» 1,
S$riA..VP.S. Rajagopai, Acivocate for R-2
R¢$pondents~ 3 ta 6 are gerversi)

Writ petition filed under’ Articles 226 &. 22′? of the

§C»0I1St’itll’ti0I’I£ of itmiia garaying to quaah the interim orders dated
‘ G?,{)6.i2%iE3 85 09.06.2605 passcii in Appiication No.4128~32 of

2005 hy the Kanimtaka Administrative Txibunai, Bangalom.

45

on merits within 60 days from the date of mceipt ofcogay of this

arder. » L_ .

With the above observations, the writ [595- é’i3;jc:m.$ed

of. it is made: clear that that t_,};1»c7:b_;)xt1e_1VV<'ji'vQ'f" _

petitioner and deciaraticm of thefz; ;ar§Jba;ti613 'sI;1§§i}3 'bV:§'LLA–31iigi¢ct £6. "

the: result of the a}3piicafi0n'pc.z}dinf§ 'b§:i'e-re VA

%%%%

A sa/–

” % Judge

xx

Ex’
0