IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA A1'
nxrmn 1-ms 1-an rm my on numcn _
PRESENT
i-'|'fiiI"iii.fi fiEJ"'8Ti£,i§: mvz
Writ Petition E39. 4730 'cf: "
Between:
S1-i.GirishB.R. _ V .
Sjo 13.1;
Aged about 32 yeafa_ V _ 'é ' '
Wozicing as
High CouItVo£.I{ai"s:1_at£iii§a.._ ~
'fiangaiore, ~ '1.
«paay.:n.pe:s6»;a % &
And: V'
.. Petitioner
'I; «The 'V
I-l.q'=",h E'.-'3-m.*t {if
s:nt.ré.u§h¢;%D-M
Q; %
Agcd"'aboiiit 31' years
gsmt. Mmanmi
V. Afigcdabout 38 3,'
Sfi. Gflarish Kuirnaf
Aged about 30 years
1 L L' ' " Sri R.Rangaawamy
Respondent 2 ts u an
Working as Assistant Court Officer
ii-igfn II ,,,,_ n;_1__a
Bangalore – 560 001 e . é ”
{By Sri B. Srinivasa Gowda, Govt. Advocsgiug ‘
…ie wfit pc1.iti;-1.1 cr_n_n.i_mr up _gdmi”_ii,e;;,on.: the”
Court delivered the following:- ” % kk
CYRIAC JO§EPl_j 0.4.’ (OE1_)__ AA
1. The g]’iCV£ll1€’.'”C4 iic was not given
pmznetien m t11i:: cadzfegf–.&.i;i;fLa…fiet _(_.3-;rmjLQEt_:er wlien it was due
16.01.2007 Vito the V1″ Gompiaining against the denial’ “” of
promotion._ In it is stated that vide order dated
:_v:.t4′;.0’8IEw7;”-.:Ait]1g_ C1iief’v–J-uaziice had rejected the request of the
gietitioner him as Assistant Court Oflioer-with effect
V..5’VAVcco1ding to the petitioner no such order was
him at any time. The matter h’aa_ been got
\.r_«.eii*;i_=?’1’_..’_ii’_.l_11r_angr1i the learned Government Advocate. It is seen that
communicated to the petitioner and hence he is not in a to
know why his request was xejected. Hence the
disposed of with a dim-etion to the 1″ xespondenth V’ e
to the petitioner the older of the Chief Jnstiee
C representation of the petitioner:.__V”‘-~T].’his” L’
period of two weeks from today. oifler if the
pefit_io_.er i- still. aggrieved Vb3r’ej*._l..§ie1nofion to him with
h :1 *”.ertf,?”‘~’te'”fik a .*’3:’–** writ
petition chafiengjng onieri s..xejee,tVing” Eiieiepresentation. The
writ petition is of shove ‘tennis.
2. The Registiy a copy of order
to the 1’f. respondent.’ ~
up
Sd/-
Chiei ]uS’£iC39
