IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARKATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 17"' DAY or JULY 2o09%%[j}..% PREEERT ms Hozrnw am. ma. nlxmmggu, cmmf;§*§J:s'$.¥Im; _: " K V. 'ms nomnn unaesrgcm N wrzrr P§TITI___QN No.1; 3«;4/;ob9 BETWEEN: SR1 ANNAPPK4 _ AGED ABOUTf-551 Y£;ARSi';- ' V' 3/0 NAEJEGGWDA " w0RK1NGAAS.DRIVER'~»._" _ OFFICE 01? THE~§;X$cLJT:vE ENGINEER PUBLIC woRK.s;~xé;£)R*rS--as ,:NLANI:: WATER TRANSPQM' DE'PAE?TME'.---N'i' SPECIAL l3IVI'SIO'iSI " " HA:SSAN .__ ' ..PE'I'I'I'I()NER %' 1' «($31 ski; :~§.v,,NARAsxMHAré, ADVGCATE) 1 , u ' ' ., 1 kkamn 1§'~..TH.E2 WATE ore' KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT ~ M S BUELDING ' aameanoaa 559 cm. 32. THE) CHIEF ENGINEER DEPARTMENT OF 381-HGATION MYSORE 5?() (H31. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER N03, HARANGI DAM DIVISION him and regularise him as Driver consequential benefits. 4». The application respondents contending V'
origu1a’ fly engaged as deflywag-3 end V
as such, he is Vtheeadne of
Group~–D post and noi:Va’s_ ‘Group-C post,
in View of pmfioribed
as required under
the V he is not entitled to
seek him and regularise him as
Driisrer benefits.
, v’I_’_I’ibuI}.a1 by order dated 17.8.2006 held
the applicant claims that he was
xas Air Compressor Driver, however, he not
‘V V’ * anywhere that his appointment was
Dri’§er. The driving licence produced by him shows
u that it was obtained by the applicant in the ymr 1983
and therefore, it is clear that as on the date of
appoixztment of the abnlieant in the year 197′?’ he did
\\s3
not possess a valid driving licence and he
possess the prescribed qualification for _
to the post of Driver that is, Pass in u ..
therefore, held that the quesfioe of
the respondents to of L.
applicant to the post of w’o1f1(i- and
accordingly, dismis’sed. ronofing the
decision of the case of
es, the said order of Tribunal
dated’ I7′.E§.-2¥OG6_,E éfipficant has preferred this writ
co§1te:od1n” ” g “” “that since the applicant has been
mramsgas fiiiver since 19?? and his services has
Driver; and that he has obtamea vafid
_ k LL A cmvingiacenoe in the year 1933 itself, he is entitled to
A 5.’ ‘sod to the cadre of Dav’ er.
7. The learned Government Advocate appwring
for the respondents argues in support of the order of
the Tribunal.
ME
him for regularisation in the said post
possess requisite qualification to the u
had been appointed against the said poet
in our considered opinion,
of the case, the order oVfe’t1_.1e tlie ,
prayer of the petitioner a to the
respondents to padre of Driver
does not suffer irregularity
and do i this Court in
exerciseof accordingly, we hold
that is’d.e”aoid of merits and pass the
fonomhg H
V’ ‘The is dismissed.
Cfluéffi/’
LI
Sd/4
JLHDGHE
Sfice
— Yes] No(,/}
‘ f V’
-~’Wc:b Host: Yes/No
Ia