@Q\; m at./'iafifi
mmwm...
2
This Writ Appeal fiied under SeetionVa.4'.._':"'of the
Karnataka High Court Act, praying to set aside"t-he. 'order
passed in writ petition No.290l4»/ 1998 dated.f__I
This Writ Appeal Coming on for.'h'ea1fi_ng"v.:this
Chief Justice delivered the i'olloj§Ving':'« , _ «
J.S.KI-IEHAR, C.J. 3
The appellant 'oe~fore intfodtieed an 'in
Service Recruitment notified on
04.08.1990. on the record of
the instant V'fV";f\nneXure~B. The first
responidlentffi 'holding the post of Junior
Assistant.,! against the post of
Assistant Tfaffie lvfianlager, under the said scheme.
to the appellant before this Court,
res.po'ndeifi--iij_ was not eligible for appointment to the
post Dfa;A.ssistant Traffic Manager, on account of the
A f"eligi"oility eriterion laid down in the scheme. In this behalf,
T would he pertinent to mention, that the eligibility'
criterion, inter - cilia provided as under:
"T he employees who apply for these posts, under this
seheme, should not have been imposed with penalties
specified under the Karnataka State Road Transport
Corporation Servants [Conduct and Diseipiine}
Regulations lg? rnentioned 'below:
{a} l8A iiiié to gviiii
X'
r . it
it
<5'
'g: E
if?
F
"f5
Wm.W.....
xlaifi
6
hearing of the instant writ appeal.
That being so, the non»
consideration of claim of the first respondent during the
course of subsistence of an illegai order of pVu~ni-shinent
cannot be said to be justified in any rnannéler’Wh’a.ts-never.
it is therefore, that the learned siiigie~«.::’_J1lidge.,
accepting the claim of the first re4spe}’ii’;fent,fhad the’ ”
appellant to reconsider Aflapipellant
appointment against the postu:of_Assistantiraffie Manager
under the “In Scheme”, without
reference to” was taken into
eonsiderationi..__Vittihnij declined at the first
junctuiye-,. .,T_:”lll7e;’:3§:,findf:>’nothingfvg/rong in the aforesaid
eone1u’s_io”n_ learned single Judge. We are
also satisfied; learned single Judge was fully
jusftfilfiegdi in balaneing the equities, inasmuch as, the
ejndige did not hold, that the first respondent
it/’o7_tild heleintitled to wages from the date when he ought tn
lfihave been appointed as ‘Assistant Traffic Manager’ (on the
v”‘lf_deelaration of his suitability to the said post), even though
said determination rendered by the learned single
if Judge was seslely on the basis of the undertaking given by
the first respondent; We are ef the View that the equities
earne tn he haiaineed by the iearned single Judge, on the
the basis ef the aforesaid paragraph which wvas,_.aa_part ef
the ‘in Service Recruitment Scheme’). Sir:ee_~-.._:tii::Vlfirst
respondent has been feund to he eligilale.
Single Judge) for C01’1SiCl€FatiOfi=_Of his.:elai.m., in i”es.pe3::se ten -~
his application (for appein.imehtl’agai:j§-.¢Q.l:the pes§:’:l,0f
Assistant Traffic the scheme
extracted hereinab<)lV'e:l:i" unnecessary for the
first respondent io isiiayer made by him,
in writ viewed, we are
satisfied.s, even in the second
eontehtieri v4l5y:_:lea1'hed Counsel for the appellant.
'~'Z, O'the1."l'plea, besides those which have been
dealt 'vhereinabove, were canvassed at the hands of
A for the appellant.
*FC>:r the reasons recorded hereinabovel we find no
melfiit in the instant Writ appeal, and the same is
accordingly dismissed.
Y?’