High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri S D Girish S/O Dyavegowda vs Mangalore Electricity Supply … on 24 June, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Sri S D Girish S/O Dyavegowda vs Mangalore Electricity Supply … on 24 June, 2008
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
  'H.E'§F&.¥?§I§s{_C}41i*I_'_l.a' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
~1?OI;LOBfI.N¢3.::"

V x '  fiiitially the petitioner was issued with an order of
'AA".§a.f')}5eiI1ment for the post of Grama Vidyuth Pratlxinidhj by

V'  "I*espondent~2. The same was questioned by respondent-3 in

AGEE ABOUT 23 YEARS   
R/O SOMANATHAPURA V1LLAGE'.°"~..__  *
AKKI HEBBALU VILLAGE =   ; Q T
I{{.R.PE'I' TALUK

MANDYA DISTRICT  %

 ' ~ : ...  RESPONDENTS.

(By Sri ARAVINE  "F',Oi?R1;
s1m-Le. SHIVARAMU,-1 ADV. EOE 

THIS w;T%.-E1LED ;U--NDER  226 AND 227 012*
THE C01';-'.¥.l."'3'I'I3.f_1fI.(i)l'«E,_'PRAYINGTO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
OFFICIAL M:EMO'RANBfUM~--.DT;v, 9.3.2006 ISSUED BY THE
R1 VIBE  T '   '  

'-._DIREC'i",--'IfHFg*-.R'§.__ -AND 2 To REINSTATE THE
PETITIQNER   who _SERVICE IN THE POST GRAMA
VIDYUTH PRATHINEDHI HAVING REGARD TO THE FACT
THAT  . _  PI_?.'I'f'I'IONER POSSESSES BETTER
Q1 }_§AL1'FICATION THAN THE R3 AND IS A HEART PATIENT;

_'i'f~{i$A."'~-PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

ORDER

W.P. No. 1684/ 2004. The petitioner though served with the
notice did not enter appearance. Sufiiee it to say, this court

aflowed the Writ petition and quashed the appoiniment of

the petitioner and further directed the to

consider the claim of respondent-__8iherein ofthe

observations made during the of a ‘A

period of three months. Therespondents option
to implement the order. and res%§ijndent~t3.’ to the
said post What is is A.n11exu.re-

D. Azmexure-‘£1: xnetitioner from the
post of

2. petition would indicate that the

petitioner ‘tires Job Oriented Course and his

is takeI1_.._.e.Way by the impugned order. But,

ht)Wever,’fl1:et.ifaet remains that the petitioner’s appointment

to afextefiwid post was set aside by this court and what

flhas «done is the implementation of the order passed by

A Having regard to the fact that Annexure–D would

i’ stem from the order passed by this court, I am of the View

that there is no scope for interference.

. 3, C0I1sequent1y, the petition stands rejected.

Before parting with the case, it is VI}gf:cessaz*y
respondenta comes out with ]
petitioner to make an applictigijgn
scheme, in which case the Eitonsider the
same SyInpath€flCafl3g,,._. E1£1\3-f;11g1′ the penurious
condition in which

Pctitiqn