I I' ~. 3 PANCIIAYATRAJ, M S BUILDING
I {I THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBEf?E:2(:)hf1:{):"'vv..
BEFORE .' I
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICEAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 598/2006 ISDISI . "
BETWEEN: ' I' I I I
SR1 U SHANKAR SHET '
S /O U RAMAKRISHNABIIAT '
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS-. _ _
OCCZ FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT :
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT I
EXECUTIVE ENGIINEER§. ZILLA -
PANCHAYAT ENG1fNIE.ER1'NG:._V ,
SUB DIVISION, PETITIONER
(raw: 7 rwriv '1 TYc\ r rnirxrwr 1":-r.r,:u 1-yr v In r-tr-fiv~.~~.' A r\\ 7 \
'IL; A. »_;i'\u g. I\_.s--AI IiJ\-_/1;. -. v"*._x LII x Q», N)"; L; in} E 1 xx, I' 11.2 \
AND:
1 THE STATE OE KARNATAKA
I BY ITS SECRETARY
E. .O.T"O :_GOVf1'. RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND
' _ B,AN.GAI;OOR'E A-1
2 '1 'THE C'IIIEI¥" ENGINNER
"*COMIViUNICA'I'IONS AND BUILDINGS
K R CIRCLE, BANGALORE --I
" * EILLA PANCHAYAT
= ._CHIKMAGALUR
DIST: CHIKMAGALUR
3 BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
ZILLA PAN CHAYAT
ENGINEERING DIVISION
I
F.)
CHIKMAGALUR
DIST: CHIKMAGALUR
5 THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
ZILLA PANCHAYAT ENGINEERING
SUB DIVISION, CHIKMAGALUR
DIST: CI-IIKMAGLUR ;REsP_ONDENTS " " » _
(BY SR1 RAGHAVENDRA G GAYATig1R1:i-iHC:GP._F'oiz RI: **
SR1 ASHOK N NAYAK, ADV. FOP,_R}3__TO 5) A ' ~ = -- '
THIS WRIT PETITION 1s°F.I_i;E 'UNDER::At2T'1't:LEs 226
& 227 OF THE OoNsT1TUT*1ON--O'E_ IN-DIA, WITH A PRAYER
To QUASH VIDE ANx.w: DATED' --29.,I2.,2o05 PASSED BY
R4 AND DIRECT THE RESPOENDi;NTsjI_ TO' CONTINUE THE
SERVICES OF THE PE"_FIfl'IO_N,§3R--""~EAS«QFIRST DIVISION
ASSISTANT IN TiiE_OFFi'CE OE.ie5;._V_ - «. *
This f.Tv'rit_f5et'ition_-::_o1nin'g"o11_fOr hearing, this day,
the Court iriadie the "1"oI.1oIWing"':I
IAOEDER
ThenpetitionerEis"~~--hefOre this Court seeking for
writ OI"ce'r"tiorari to quash the order dated
by the fourth respondent which is
inipugned”IS§:’I:;AnneXure~W to the writ petition. The
3.,’*petitiof1er1- has also sought for issue Of mandamus to
the respondents to continue the services of the
respondent as First Division Assistant in the Office of
:the 5m respondent.
i
«E
2. Heard the Iearned counsel for the parties and
perused the petition papers.
3. The fact that the petitioners serviitpestveret
regularised in the year 1990 is not
the issue for consideratilori:.is as to the
regularisation made to the –.of ‘”lDiVision
Assistant is justified or jqgégtion arises for
consideration:.,in;:}fiew the impugned
order dated’ the authority
has the petitioner had not
been appoirlted the Vacant post of the First
Division Ass’i’st_ai1t.and- also that he did not have service
– ,.gf ljiears the said post at the time of regularisation.
have further indicated that the
decision at their hands is in View of the order
.ll””‘«._’lp»assedz this Court in W.P.No.32107–1l4/1999,
sjfvhlereiri a similar issue had been considered.
4. In the said background, a perusal of the papers
would indicate that the regularisation as made in the
E.
«iii»
contention was also aided by the orders passed by this
Court. Therefore, the physical act of reVersion’jii*o_”tn:”ihe
post of FDA to the post of SDA
academic at this stage. However-,,the said]_que«s.tio’n
would remain for consideration insofar as the”orde17..With~.u
regard to the recovery of the’*..eXcess–. sa1.a_ry has V
been paid to the petitioner;””‘ haye”‘n’oticed the
sequence of events conclusion
that from he has
discharged, to the extent of
recoverywof in the order dated
29. not be sustainable and
to the Said 4’e;:ter1t.,.v”the order impugned stands quashed.
the question as to whether the
regu.1arisationt to the post of FDA was appropriate,
R””‘-._V:”consid.erir1g the fact that this Court had directed
i..”reVc’onAsideration while disposing of W.P.No.6256/2001,
-»de:spite as on the said date, the earlier order in the
batch of writ petition which is relied on in the impugned
being avaiiable cannot be ignored. In such
é
% 0
In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed
of. No order as to Costs.
%311dg?% ”
Akc/bms