High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri B K Narayana vs The Divisional Controller … on 18 September, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Sri B K Narayana vs The Divisional Controller … on 18 September, 2008
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy


:9: THE HIGH comm’ OF KARNATAKA, BA?§GA£:§f§_ E-.

BATED THIS THE 13% DAY 0:-§%jsEI*rE:~m;E;~1é 2905 % H

BEFORE; .

THE HONBLE MR. Jl.}STi CE;.. %

WRIT PETITION 1s:0.137o i-<32~'kk200*7 rL!;:;__s,_33*rc1

_ _ _ u _ _-an

SM 3 K NARA_Y:%.!§A. .

SON OF’ POMIé_+;CI7iU, ., ._ ;,
AGED ABOUT’ YEARS-.’jJ«~–..V% ” V.
R/AT NG.1?8, CF:()SS, ‘ ..

mm MAIN, .r§13THA;;z=.NA{;AR,
LALITHADRIPUEEAW E-“«’Z)%S’f»’_ . —

MYSORFE’ ” _
‘ PE’I’I’f’IONER

_ (3y«:i§x¥i {if 3 N}xI:c:.A_z_s;p. MANZTULH N KLILKARNI, ADV )

Du :

___.,-.. ,

‘I’H§;.”DIvIS@’=:§xL CGNTROLLER
KAR:\:A’mKA” STATE ROAB

. ?_ ‘ ‘ ._’FRANSPO:RT CORPORATIGN
nzvsom EIWSIGR

A “«.”B:IYSi3_RE

RESPGNIDENT

….(3y Sri. : G A K GOWDA, ADV )

THIS ‘WRIT PETFFIGN IS FILED UNIDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF’ iNI}IA PRAYING TO
CALL FOR THE ERTIRE RECORDS OF THE CASE IN
REFERENCE NO. 261/2091 ON THE FILE (31? T35

that the petitioner was not enfitieé ts any

periad of servicx-3 rendered by (:1: ‘

temporary and accordingly, by dafeci_”1§’fvI)’_»’1

Annexmxe-“C”, rejected the’ ;{<éf«:renccn,_ }~Is3ifs;:<=5;._;'t'r=;i5'°writ"' '

petition.

2. Learlled coL111sc:fT’l..VVi’éi}_ (flees not
dispute the ‘the a large number

of filed
W.P.N}3′.186 a Division Bench of this

Court, b§’:;;’ds:§r ” 140-1985, held thus:

«Vthe reasons stated above,

VA petitions are allowed and a writ in
of mandamus shall issue to the
re$p<fiidcnt~Corp0rati0n directing it 1:0
j éozisidcr the case: of the petitioners for
absorption in the vacancies at' Conductors
H which occur herfiaftcr until all the
petitiansrs am absorberd in service. We
make it clear that persons who are already
absorbed. or appeintaé shall not stand

E/:~*<K

In the circumstances, the writ petition is"'4'7s:§}'it1fV:-3§1ii' M

merit and is accordixlgly, rejected.

KS