High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri. Bhadraiah K vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 November, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Sri. Bhadraiah K vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 November, 2010
Author: V.Jagannathan
IN THE HIGH COURT op' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Dated the 19*' day of November 2010
:BEFORE: fa
HONBLE MRJUSTICE : V.JAGANNAfifIjii£V§Nf'4.."~..-. K

WRIT PETITION Nos. 19101-105 / 20 

BETWEEN :

1. Sri Bhadraiah.K.,   '  '~ , 2  
S / 0 Late Kempegowda; Aged a"o_o1it 49 ye'a;rs. ;
Working as Bill Co11ectoT~"oum~C'leTk;     '
Hunasemaranahalli Grarha Panchay-at,t ' '
Ramanagara Taluk 8: I)is*.:7iVct.. V"-._ i ' -

2. Sri P.Rajesh, '' 'A  t'    * _
S / o Puttaswamy,H_A'ge_d a,boj1t--'Z1~2. 
Bill Collector, Mylahaggakanahalii  
Gram a" Pafoch ayht, Kasaba V H--o'o1.i.
Cha.rin_'a,patn.a Ho_b.1i.' Ramanagara District.

3. ism.B.aevar1.asiad1a1a1:. '
S;/o*Late  Aged about 48 years.
Worlgiiig as_Bil1 Coljectorwcumwclerk,
1 . .1 Suggariahalii Grafiia Panchayat,
 Ramanagara Tao'-.uk <31 District.

.A    

V' as Vvo'vCh.eij;nappa, Aged about 42 years,
Wo'T1gi'11,g"as Bil} Co1lector--cum--C1erk,
 Belagumba Grama Panchayat,
 Rariianagara Taluk & District.

V  Sn' ShivaramegoWda.S.,

S/ o Siddaiah, Aged about 39 years,
Working as Bill Col1ector--cum--C1erk,
Nagavara Panchayat, Channapatna Taluk,
Rarnanagara District.

. . .Petitio1'1e1's

[ By Sri A.Nagarajappa, Advocate for
Sri A.Nagarajappa 81 Associates. }

 



AND:

The State of Karnataka,

rep. by its Secretary,    
Rural Development 8: Panchayath Raj Department,' .  -- '.  '2
Karnataka Govemment Secretariat, 3  V' '
Multistoried Building, Dr.A1nbedkar Veedhi, __
Bangalore--56O 001. 5  = --- 

( By Sri Jagadeesh Mufldargi,  ll:  2  

Writ Petitions filed pray_i_nug..to*.direct'  respondent to

consider the represen_t_a't.ion.'lAnneXure~C and to

dispose of thepusame   quota for Bill
Collector of §~vG'ran1a l?_aneh.ayatli"ll.out_'___of direct recruitment
quota of tolthep'ost.,.§f..P1::.()slvbypromotion, and to direct
the 1"t'3$]'QV01'l"t?l.§':1"1'l;::I:,Cv.)   objection of the petitioners
datec?!._l1 tiled to the draft C <31 R Rules
published dated TE}  etc;

 _These petitions coming on for preliminary hearing in

 '~   this  court made the following :

ORDER

only relief sought in these petitions by the

p€ti»t.i¢.ti\€I’S is to direct the respondent to consider the

Vrepjresentation as well as the objections to the draft C 8:

l Rules of the Rural Development 8: Panchayath Raj

Department. %

-Q

2. The submission of the petitioners’ counsel is that

the petitioners, being the employees of the ‘jG»rama

Panchayath Working as Bill Collectors

decades, want a separate quota for v_:f)yV

way of promotion to the7__v post}

Development Officer out<'o.f_ 675/£:,_ 'Vrese1r.Ve.j_p: for

recruits and by setting for of Bill
Collections. Therefore,_tl'ie is made by the
petitioners' counsel as well as
the to the draft C 8: R
Rules' be to

3. thin submission made and the

nature and the learned Government

__for the-..respond€nt-State also submitting that

sthevtpreprleysentation/objections would be considered in

.acc’ordanc§; 5;with law, if not considered already, this

petition. is, therefore, disposed of with the following

V’ ‘ — iiireactionz

The respondent-State is directed to consider the
representation as well as the objections if any filed by

the petitioners as per Annexures–C and E in respect of

%’

.I

the petitioners’ prayer for allotting certain quota or

percentage to the Bill Collectors to the_4…p~o_et.’ of

Panchayath Development Officer. If the

are not already considered, th,e.y__shailt”be:’_’:Vcohsidered”»_

within a period of three month§s.&fro_:rr1~’tthe~.date

of a copy of this order and’t§_t”aha1IAbe_in with L’

law.