High Court Karnataka High Court

Shrishail S/O.Shankar Tottagi vs N W K S R T C Bagalkot Division on 9 December, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Shrishail S/O.Shankar Tottagi vs N W K S R T C Bagalkot Division on 9 December, 2010
Author: H.Billappa
1N THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

CIRCUIT BENCH AT DPIARWAD

DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY or DECEMBER;dCC2'C§i*.§?"'   =

BEFORE   u
THE HON'BLE MR.JUsT1er«;  
WRIT PETITION No.6sa23/zéiifi   
Between:  H C 

Shrishaii, , '
S/o.Shanka1" Tottagi,   
Age: 20 Years, Oeet.-Stiiderit, V 
R/O Mahalingpurj   _   V _  '

Tq; Mudol , Dist? B_a,gailiQt.Q;-.__      ...PETITIONER

[By Sri.AnaiidVQVR;KoV1Ii,'A  C
And:  C A K C it  

N W K s E: T C sagaiizét {dixrision}
Bagalkot  " 

I-'RepreAser1ted'" by"i.ts  CCCC H C
      ...RESpONDENT

**=i=**

This \a+"1*itVCf;=eCtition is fiied under Articles 226 and 227 of

 the Cons'iiti1tion of India, praying to quash the impugned
"'-C.o"rde'rn dated.:O6.04.2010, Vide AnneXure--D passed by the
.'VV.resj:30ndeij1t corporation. Grant interim order, directing the
 resporiderit Corporation to provide any alternative job as
C' fxwhichg is suitable to the qualification the petitioner to meet
it  ends ofjustiee.

L/.



IQ

This petition Coming on for preliminary hearing this
day, the Court made the following: ' 

ORDER

in this writ petition under Articles Of .0

Constitution of india, the petitioner:=1has:.0eaiiepdhitnt
the endorsement dated 6.4.2010’v-ide T V

2. By the impugned end0oVi*se1nent,V” petitioner has
been informed that there eornpassionate
appointment as died after he
was removed from’; petition.

3. in ‘0

The petiti.oner’s _father”‘_.Was a driver. He was working

t’.1’1d€I’ the “respondent. due to his illness, the petitioner’s

fa’ther1″was.V_v i*iot..rab_le to attend for duty. Therefore, the

vvpetitioneris removed from service on 80.03.2009 as

Thereafter, the petitioner’s father has died

on’~:0f2fi”iV.08…é2009. The petitioner has given representation as

per }%,11nexure«’C’ for compassionate appointment. The

V

‘.;.)

respondent has issued endorsement as per Annexure–‘D’.

Therefore. this writ petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitionerifeidfeoiitentied’

that the impugned endorsement cannot be .1as,>v.”‘

He also submitted that the petitioners”father_f died”‘di:\§’w.:.:£Q

illness and therefore, the petiticine-rpphasgiven

and therefore, the impugned ____f:endorVsernei1«t__cannot be

sustained in law.

5. I have gearefrillyii._consi:de’red~–.th.e…submissions made

by the 1earne’d’vfC’oiu.ijsei’ffoi’ ‘_’petit.iorier.

6. It iS.__reEevant’.tonote, the petitioner’s father was
working a’~driver”.=.I€_Ie has been removed from service on

..as.pp.ervAnnexure~’A’. Thereafter, the petitioners

(§,%iid’f25.os.2oio. The petitioner has given

‘7’,_representatuiori as per Annex-urew’C’ for compassionate

.1 élpptiiininientidd The respondent has issued endorsement as per

stating that the petitioners father has died

ll//.

after he was removed from service and therefore, the request

of the petitioner Cannot: be considered as there”‘–»is.Vj'”‘n’o

provision. I do not find any error or illegality in

endorsement. Therefore, the impugned”‘enriorserneintdoesynot

call for interference. There is no rnerit this” writ «.pet’itio11._

and therefore, it is liable to be dis’2n:i’sVsed. it ‘

Accordingly, the Writ ‘i3§?titiOn”‘i:5. n€§iisVVi*1*1.i$’%ec«l’.”‘*-A

–=

Mck/–