Loading...

Sri Venkatesh S/O Manik … vs The State Of Karnataka Rep B Y Its … on 15 February, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Sri Venkatesh S/O Manik … vs The State Of Karnataka Rep B Y Its … on 15 February, 2010
Author: N.K.Patil And A.S.Pachhapure
IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA, CIRCUET BENCH A
DHARWAD. 

DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2010' if -V
PRESENT in
THE HON'BLE MRHUSTICET1~e».K.4EATI.ti'V"Cutive  T. '
Engineer  ~~~~   "*- =  *

Maiaprabha Right  .Canai«.ConstruCtion
Sub--Divisior1f'%o.'1'3 ' _'    "

fbrahimpur, Ta11ik.._4Niavaigui"£ri " 
Dist. DhaI'"f9Ci " . ' ~   i .. Petitioner
 Sri,  ArivoCaitei"foriSri Vighneshwar S.Shastri, Advocate)

Andi' V

  The  of Karnaitaka

ffiepresehted by its Secretary

. . ._  Qovernnient, Irrigation
' " V Deopartment; M.S.Bui1ding

 .__Ba_ngaior~e -- 560 001

  Chief Engineer

 rigation (North)



Belgaurn

3. The Executive Engineer
Malaprabha Right Bank Canal
Construction Division No.4
Navalgund, Dist. Dharwad

4». The Assistant Executive
Engineer, Malaprabha Right
Bank Canal Construction Sub
Division No.13, Ibrahirnpur
Taluk Navalgund, District i   1   
Dharwad   ..  

(By Sri C.S.Pati1, Add}. Govt. Advocate fey 01%»-».i._ ancisi--ii N.jM.Hansi,
Advocate for R~2 to R-4) K ' » i . "  

This writ petition is filed..underi._iArti(ii1esififgiéiand 227 of the
Constitution of India._pi=ayin;_'g to 'c}uas'h"--the' impugned order dt.

01.09.2006 passed {in Application"No.875"1;/2004 on the file of the
Karnataka Admini'stra:tiv.e--':Tri bu-:_1__ai.. arid etc.__ ~

This p.etitioi_nonv.'fo.r final hearing this day, N.K.Pati1
J., delivered the 'following; 9  9' " h
4'  gfinsn
In theVinstantiiviiititg"petition, the Writ petitioner assailing the

correctness  the,oI~=der impugned dated 01.09.2006 in Application

 No.8'i7:3.i}'.--2.00'}. __th,e'fi1e of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal

 vide Anne§A:urefl--.B"a'nd further sought for a mandamus to direct the

_:respoind.ent to regularise the service of the petitioner as Senior

V"«Ii'}rade._iiEng1ish Typist from 26.04.19, has presented this writ

C petition.



2. The brief facts of the case are:

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitiQVner._V_at

the outset is that the petitioner had submitted his

dated 29/31.07.2000 to the Assistant Executive E~ng.in:eevr',--i::the   '

respondent herein to regularise his service asper the.G'oVernn'ientri

Order dated 06.08.1990 contending.4_thatii’h_ei’had teetepileted; tea

years of service and 2400 days in ten he had
further specifically referred tiiat_ theHtiiryhge,.i»’F.;~ibunaiiihad passed
an order for grant of continuity vindicate that it is

deemed that he Was”iti”«TsLei*vicie frorri: theftermination till the

date of cut off date mentioned
in the GovernineiitiOrden’ fact has been brought to
the notice. of V_:ia’ut.horitiesii several times, they have not
his serviceiiivifith effect from the date of entry into

serific_e’i’on”d.a’i1_Viwvageiirbasis. Since the said request has not been

0 Vi”ee….oonsideI’e__di by authorities within a reasonable time, he Was

.”L:’£;Q’1fiSiL’FaiI1Cd”t0A’I.fiiC Application No.8″/”51 of 2001 on the file of the

i._i_”Ka_riiatai{a*«_. Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore seeking for a

it iffdirectioxi to the respondents :0 regularise the service of the

/j,
V

petitioner as a Typist under the respondent with effect,.___from

26.04.1994 after completion of ten years from the date of

service with all consequential benefits. When the sai.d:—-applie:atio’n–ci *

came up for consideration before the ‘I’ri_’_o.un_al, tlieiiribitinalv’_’aftQ.,: ii”

assessing the oral and documentary evidenced ~andr_ot’h_ei’r relxevanti

material on the file, dismissed the’isa’;ne. se;sgaggrie.esstttby the –. ‘

order passed by the Tribunal and relief as
stated supra, the petitioner~hf”elt to present this
petition. i i it V

3. We xfor the petitioner and
learned a considerable length of
time. After carefulpe’1*usail’A’oiflthe”representation submitted by the
petitioner dated and the order passed by the
Karnataka:iCAd,inin–igtrati\rei'”Tribunal, we do not find any error or

illegal._ityand:”uVn1*easoi.1ableness or material irregularity as such

i iV<:ommittediVibyV. Tribunal in rejecting the application of the

» .ifjp,etitioner asvvdevoid of merits. The "Tribunal has rightly recorded a

of fact holding that it is not in dispute that petitioner is out

i" Vfjof_:service from 31.05.1985 t%.O2.2000. He has not worked as a

-u–v-‘-*’°””‘”””‘””m'”‘-V
E’

Z

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information