IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 5"' DAY OF OCTOBER.
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAMn;xoHA1vf " "1:R§$"BB§{ D ' V
WRIT 1=I:'rrrIoN No.2ss1o;'OFA'20o9"
BETWEEN
SATZSH R .
S/O. LATE RAJASHEKA .,
AGE 28 YEARS * 'A '-- .
R/AT NO. 36, MARUTHI NI '- .j(A '_ :
10TH MAIN, SHNANAGAR' 1 .
RAJAJINAGAR." B'Ab3GALOP£--V4 1'0, " V.
_. 2 ~ _ , ...PETITZONER
(BY SR1. B B BAJLENTR1,
AND:
1 'cON1M1:§$1ONfE;R'§:OR COLLEGIATE
EDUCA'£'ION. ROAD
_13ANOALOREj.- A ~'
- '2 JOINi'b1REcmR OF COLLEGIATE
. 3 E:>:;cA1j1ON. PALACE ROAD
BANGALORE ~-- 1.
3? ?"""THE'.i%;A:é1§ATAKA LINGYATH EDUCATION
sO'c1.F'1'Y,.,.--~' , COLLEGE ROAD
BELOAUM RERBY ITS SECRETARY.
V' C4; PRINCEPAL
" "(BY SR}. T P SREENIVASA. AGAHFOR R1 3:; R2}
D' -- NIGELINGAPPA COLLEGE LKLE}
RAJAJENAGAR, BANGALORE --- 560 010.
RESPONDENTS
E
‘J;
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH BY ISSUE OF’ A WRIT OF CERTIORARI ORD}”:aNY
OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER THE IMPUGNED
ENDORSEMENT DATED 18.5.2009 ISSUED Es{.I…’1f’fi.E’ 3
(ANNEXURE~H); AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, CDMING ONFQR I O’
THIS DAY THE coum’ MADE THE FOLLQVWNG :.
Petitionefs father died I “h.a1″neSS I
as an Attender, in t}1(i3:4’~.3x;/d coIIege;’Ivhence
the petitioner made for
appointment grholrands. The 3rd
respondent: ._p1io¢_eSs’i~:d._'”t;’tIe; appiiéation which when
forwarded,” by the Zfid respondent,
who, issuuedcluhha. “dated 20~–10-2001 AnneXure~”F”
~”‘~._VStatirig that the’«appiication would be considered in
ppo’f.4ti1e’»O}oVernment order dated 1–8~2001. Failure
‘joflthe 2nd respondent to pass orders on the
. “V.petitiorI_er.’s application led to the filing of an appeal
“II Section 130 of the Karnataka Education Act,
I $283 before the 1st respondent – Commissioner, which
bi
was rejected by endorsement dated 18-05-2009
Annexure-“H”. Hence this petition.
2. An appeal under Section 130 of
Education Act, 1983 is maintainabie
passed by an officer or authority éintfthe
instant case, in the absenc’e.._x_’cfVV Eton the
petitioners appiicatioVn…_”fthpefji£3¢ti,tio;;ée,could not have
maintained an appea1.:,To:. dt’h.e”authority was
ruily justified): However, the
finding ____ application for
compassionate ‘cannot be approved in View
of the Government 1-2-2002, is beyond the
scope’:’oi”~the and that finding is arbitrary and
unj:1stified.*..V:I”‘say so because the petitioner’s application
was”-.rree;ui7rjed’s:=to be considered and orders passed
‘.Vtherecn””bay’the 2nd respondent –~ Joint Commissioner as
“indicated in his letter dated 20-10-2001 Annexure-“F”.
The IS’ respondent — Commissioner, instead of directing
32%
the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner’s
application and dispose of the same in accordanceii
law, without justification recorded a _
application for compassionate appointrn_er1t” =ca:1iiot”.be.v ”
approved, by the order impugnedfg A it
3. The writ petitionVisf”‘~»a11ovved__ in The * it
endorsement dated 18305-2QiG9:}P;rit1exure’¥”I+I.7’ so far
as it relates to the ‘application for
compassionate approved in
View of the dated 1-2-2002, is
quashed. -. preispondent — Joint Director is
directed toconsideruthe.:’petitioner’s application in terms
___of ietter da’teVdvv___2Q:i-12-2001 Annexure–“F” and pass
orders –thereon,__ in any event, Within a period of three
date of receipt of a copy of this order.
d sd/-1
JUDGE