V"£'\.'J
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DATED TI-IIS THE 2151' DAY OF OCTOBER.
BEFOREW -
TI-IE I-ION'BLE MR.JUS'I'ICE II/IOII.ANf
WRIT PETITION No§CC5:1~7_1 OF 20OV7Cv-.(AS'§R'E.?S}"j
BETVVEEN :
RMAHADEVAPPA
S/O. LATE NANJAMMA
AGE 33 YEARS _ I
OLD No.8, NEW NO; 156
SWEEPERS ~ 4 _
RAJAJINAOAR_.4i:OLONy _
CINEMA ROAD: -- NANJANOUD
MYSORE"EIsfiz21C1*;:.; " * PEIITIONER
[BY M is. NAG SHAFI, ADV}
AND : I D4 A D
1 THE UNION OF INDIA
- NEEBY ITS ASSISTANT LABOUR
COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL)
_ "1\/4III~JIVS7}fRY_ OF LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT
A "O:FFICE' THE DEPUTY CHIEF LABOUR
COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL) SHRAM
SA~D_A'N, YESHWANTHPUR, INDL. SUBURB.
280 STAGE, GORAOUNTEPALYA, TUMKUR
" ROAD, BANGALORE -- 22.
THE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA
REPBY I'IS ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGER
DISTRICT OFFICE, "PRESTIGE COMPLEX"
C A DOUBLE ROAD,
RAMASWAMY CIRCLE, MYSORE ~ 570 024.
3 THE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA
REGIONAL OFFICE, NO. 10
I ST PHASE, IST STAGE.
THAVAREKERE, BANGALORE M 41
REPBY ITS GENERAL MANAGER.
4 THE FOOD CORPORATION OF iNDIA
REPBY YFS ZONAL, MANAGER SOUTH _- " -- "
3, HADDOWS ROAD, CHENNAIALB.-.1 ;_y..REs:2ONDE'NTSv..' A
(BY SR1 Y HARIPRASAD, cosc FOR R1) "
{BY SR1. P R RAMES11, ADV FOR R2 M 4;
THIS WRIT PETITTON ISETLED UNDER ART-14c1;"Es 226 A
AND 227 OF' THE CO_NSTITUTION INDIAPRAYING To
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 13.7j,06O'-PASSED BY THE R3
MARKED AS ANN--G, ISSGUEGWRIT MANDAMUS TOT HE
R1 AND R4 To CONSIDER 'fmE _.REPRESENTA'1'IONS OF
THE PETITIONER DATED} 29.6.06 OTVEN TO THE R4
MARKED AND.: ..
THIS-'S :COIj1\/ii';'=\T.d,O1'J; FOR PRLHEARING IN 'B'
GROUP, TH1S"D;é\§{, Tt'1EpCOURT THE FOLLOWING:
I5etitioner?_s' "3. class IV employee in the
respondent--Food'1Corporation of India, reported to have
75.2001 yyhile in harness, led to the petitioner
.fi’15i_1_1g “étn’._;a_pp1»i:eation dt. 19.7.2001 for appointment on
cOi’npa.ssi’onate grounds, which when rejected by
it ‘etanirnflnication dt. 13.7.2006, has resulted in this
A’ petition.
2. Petition is opposed by filing statement of
objections inter alia contending that the dependent of
M
deceased–employee quota GDDE) in the respondent-
organistation is regulated strictly in terms”
Headquarter Circular dt. 14.5.2001 and _
thereunder is possible subject tomcertain * ,
the instructions issued by the
Co oration to re’ect a lications iendin *forj1nore5than.f
} PP .. V _ ,
three years, coupled fact is no
vacancy in the the 5% direct
recruitment V ‘quota :p.fo’1’\~ . appointment,
resulted _petitioner’s claim, by
communication . V
..i.IkIeard”‘*the learned counsel for the parties,
pleadings and examined the
c’o,_rI1munic_ation AnneXure–G. The communication states
that ” the Committee constituted by the competent
a1.1thority, assessed the Vacancy/ scrutiny of DDE
.. _..applications for the year 2005 and examined the
vacancy position for appointment, whence it was
observed that there were no vacancies available under
Lek
4
5% direct recruitment quota. The Communicationdoes
not animate consideration of the petitionersa’p-piicatioii_
dt. 19.7.2001 against vacancies in e>:iste11ce*’Vas*~:o1aAVthat ,
date to be filled up on compass:i.Qna”te.. ‘T1fre
competent authority Without examiiiingh th.e«-….\ra..canc3rVi’
position as in the_ year as perverse
procedure to reject dthveiiaetitioner. In that
View of the vrn:at.ter,:”the’ dt. 13.7.2006
Annexure.
‘{V1’it….petition is allowed. The
Communication .£¥r:nexure–G is quashed.
The proceediiighis 1je113.itt’€C1.._fQI7 consideration afresh over
the V”peti.tioner’_s’~. :v’app1ication dt. 19.7.2001 and
i;.sU}_osequei1t”represVenté1tions and pass orders strictly in
‘_ac_eordance wi.th}_law, in any event within a period of
0’ ‘ . Vthr’ee__ nélofitiis.
Sd/…:
I” dye
ln.