IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 14-TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009'
PRESENT
THE I-ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE VGOPALA OO\nrE.Q§x'T-T' T"
AND '
THE HONBLE MRS. JUSTICE'B.KT,ONT\GTXP¥¥THNAfl\/,,,:T'I.
WRIT APPEAL NO;32;3/20O8{s:R.E$)
BETWEEN:
KMSOMAS1-IEKARA '
S/O 1). MUDDATPPA I
AGED AB0UT.,48;--¥tEARs '
R/AT NO.5:41, 2':ND"-MATIN'--.VjS-~-..
8TH CROSS,LOI;ANAYAKA.'m§GAR;A V
HEBBALI'IvL4\I1'\§RO2é::3
MYSO§E5T6 V A
. ..APPELLANT
' _ (E5: .13. RAJASHEKAR, ADV.)
"1 CHAIRMAN
K_ARL\}'ATAKA POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
(PARISARA BHAVAN]
4TH AND 5TH FLOOR, N049, CHURCH STREET
" * BANGALORE-O1
O ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER
REGIONAL OFFICER OF KARNATAKA
STATE POLLUTION B ARD FLAT NOA38
1-IEEBAL INDUSTRFAL STA
K R.S.ROAD
MYSORE
.. . RESPONDENTS
(By Sri: 13′ UMASHANKAR 8: SR1 C K VENKATESH,
FOR R1 AND R2) .
WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE ‘iTHE[_ORDEI=?. up .
PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION ..NO.3e;<i7/zoos 'DATI:ij_ "
4/4/2008.
This Appeals eomingponé for prelliminarg-9hearing;
day, Gopala Gowda J., de1ivere*d:t’h.e following;
U
.DdMeN
The statement of objections Annexure–R1
showing the11istfiof_ _persoris…preSent1y working and previously
worked linplthel étate Pollution Control Board
(heregmafter ealledthe lBoard’ in short) is filed.
2.1 Thel:app.e11ant–employee has been employed by the
Board” 2.7.1991. He has questioned the correctness of
of termination dated 7.2.2008 passed by the members
of the Board urging various grounds particularly placing
reliance upon the order passed by this court in the
W.P.No.1_0529/92 disposed of on 16.6.1998 and requested
this court to peruse the additional document in this Writ
\»/
appeal in lVlisc.W.1508/09 under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC,
the Learned Counsel for the Appellants submits”
order impugned in the writ petition is not sustai.i§ilabi’e.’ .
as the same is contrary to the Govemment dated ‘*
14.6.1990 particularly para 9 speaks.oo_fT the
1’
‘Last– come–first–go’. In the case on thewas
appointed by the Board in the persons
who are appointed ..v_as.per the additional
document Annexure–P, tghevlist are appointed
by the Board and 2000 have
been retained ilhierefore, he submits the
order 0 the last come first go
principles said ».0:der as stated in the above said
document could _r1Voft, be produced by the appellant herein at
‘~ ‘thev.iti:ine filing the’~w’rit petition as the information was not
and he obtained the same by encashing
his the provisions of right to information Act.
‘.V.There1″ore,: it could not be brought to the notice of the learned
0’ llfsinlgdlep judge to examine the order in the impugned writ
~ pcgutilon. Therefore, he has requested this couxt to consider
” the aforesaid legal aspects and material evidence and grant
the relief as played in the writ petitions.
lw
_ 4 _
3. Learned counsel Mr. Venkatesh for the Board has
justified the order of termination placing reliance upon the
document produced at Annexure–R–l, contending that the
appellant herein was working at Mysore on contractiblasuis.
As per the Board’s Memorandum dated 6.2.2008:;”‘tlie_ifg: u
no Work in the Regional Office at Mysore list –,
applied for the recruitment of
Recruitment Notification in 2002. Therefore, vtras ;
compelled to terminate him _ser\}ice_llAoi”: the Board.
Hence, the learned counsel submits that the
order of termination is ‘With the learned
single samell does not call for our
interference in exercise of Appellate
Jurisdiction’ arid Poweif. ”
heariied coiinsell for the Appellant has rightly placed
reliaii.ce’«in ~supp*_ort of his contention reported in the case of
Incliorge Gloi§t;il:Hide Flaying Centre & another V/s. Rama Ram
& [2003 SCC (L818) 1170) wherein the same legal
“:l”_a.spe’cts are urged to contend that the order of the learned
single judge is not sustainable in law for the reason that the
aPDellant’s services shouldkyhave been terminated.
-5-
Another important aspect of the case is that the drivers who
were subsequently appointed from 1994 to 19992000 by the
Board have been retained in their services of the Board.
Therefore, the termination order passed ElgE1lI}.VSV’:t’.”I1£l’_1C
Appellant is in contravention of the Principle of _
first–g0″ as stated in the Governrnentpprder referred» supra
upon which rightly placed re1ia;§1cei_—by’
Counsel and the decision of .the_ supreine court jvrefverred to
supra. For this reason, having regarduto undisputed fact
that the employees Olffiihe were appointed’
subsequent to the El.p]JOiI1tv:I.lif3,I1l,l.’V0l:j tl’ievVap.’pel’1ant have been
retained in ti1Vef»serv7.lces_ oftlie Board and the services of the
appellant is<–terminated"i.nll"eor1travention of the Government
Order and lawn' laid clowlrillby the Apex Court in the case
..,_refelr_rled:p_A–t.o supra. "f':"i'erefore, the order of termination is bad
pin andtis§"li:ab.le to be quashed. Accordingly, we set aside
theV_lorderl.inipulgned in the writ petition by allowing the writ
lx__appeai'~~ and consequently, the writ appeal is allowed. The
A issued at Annexure-M dated 6.2.2008 is hereby
A quashed. \l\"fi—-«
5. The respondent is hereby directed to reinstate the
app-ekiant in service with all other consequentiai benefits.
The order shall be complied within four weeks from thedate
of receipt of this order.
Sd/ ”
Svk