Remanded

Vinayaka Murlidhara Joshi v. the Managing Director Karnataka Power Transmission

Karnataka HC5 Mar 2012WP/11458/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged an endorsement regarding his case for compassionate appointment. He sought relaxation of age limits under Regulation 17. The Court quashed the endorsement and remanded the matter to the Board for reconsideration.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the endorsement dated 14.10.2003 and remanded the matter to the respondent Board to reconsider the case within four months.

Vinayaka Murlidhara Joshi Vs the Managing… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH, AT DHARWAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE^5TH DAY OF MARCH 2012

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.K,PATIL

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.1 1458/2005(5-RESJ

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Age: 33 years, S/o Murulidhar Joshi, Ranebennur. Ganesh Nagar, Vinavaka Murlidhara Joshi, R/o. Vinayaka Nilaya, Halagiri Road,

¶8

Petitioner

¶9

(By Shri. M.Raghavendra Achar, Adv.)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Karnataka Power Transmission Maintenance Circle,(KPTCL), Corporation Ltd., Hubli-20. The Managing Director,

¶12

.Respondent

¶13

(By Sri.Shivaraj P Mudhol & Sri. B.S.Kamate,^Advs.)

¶14

for by 14/10/2003 and to direct the respondent to consider the case of appointment compassionate Constitution of India, praying to set aside the endorsement dated petitioner ground This Writ Petition is filed Under Articles 226 and 227 of the relaxing the age condition as per clause-D of Regulation-17 of the the on

¶15

and Karnataka Recruitment regulations. Electricity promotion Board

¶16

made the following: This writ petition coming on for hearing this day, the Court

¶17

ORDER

¶18

D of Regulation-i 7 of the Karnataka Electricity Board Recruitment endorsement respondent to consider the case of petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground by relaxing the age condition as per Clause respondent. bearing and Promotion Regulations. impugned cum Y.Ku.Uu.U.La.Ne:Sel.He.Sa.8899-95 dated 14.10.2003, issued by Notification In the instant petition, petitioner is assailing the correctness of He has further sought for a direction to direct the No.

¶19

appointment compassionate account and has submitted his representation to consider his case for ground petitioner was working as Junior Engineer and he expired on untimely death 18.12.2002 while he was in service, on account of heart attack, the leaving behind him and his aged mother. He is a Graduate in Arts on on of the deceased father during the course of of 2. The brief facts of petitioner’s case are that, the father of

¶20

¶21

issued the endorsement dated 14.10.2003, vide Annexure-F. and he is the only bread earning member in the family. Without taking that fact into consideration, respondent Corporation has employment, stating that there is financial distress in their family

¶22

K and the acknowledgment at Annexure-Ki. Respondent has not under Regulation to relax te condition of age. Therefore, he was constrained to approach thfs Court in W.P. 11755/2004, vide submitted a detailed representation to the Board, vide Annexure Annexure-J. taken any decision, issued, This Court has dismissed the petition, reserving But, however, the impugned endorsement is liberty to the petitioner to file his representation. Accordingly, he The said endorsement is not sustainable and is liable to be vitiated. 3. It is the case of petitioner that the Board has got power

¶23

11755/2004 and same was dismissed as withdrawn 25.03.2004, vide Annexure-J. reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Board on After diposal of the said petition, W.P. 4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had earlier filed No.

¶24

¶25

has has that he is aged about 33 years 7 months 10 days, and has Dire,t and the his request cannot issued post that, the due appointment on compassionate ground. It is the specific case of Instead of representation, the respondent Board has issued the impugned endorsement dated 14.10.2003 viçle Annexure-H. submitted his application on 20.02.2003. Inspite of submitting the endorsement. Such endorspen cannot be sustained. registered considered petitioner submitted a detailed representation to the respondent the petitioner that the Board has got the power under Regulations to acknowledgment been Except stating impugned on 30.04.2004, vide Annexurl-K aäd same has been sent through relax the condition of age, therefore his representation ought to Managing acknowledged vide Annexure-K1. Therefore, His date of birth is be have been placed before the Board for consideration. 12.07. 1969. for As per the Regulations, beyond 33 years he is not eligible.

¶26

¶27

supra, the impugned comrriinication cum endorsement dated 14.10.2003 vide Annexure-H, is not sustainable and is liable to 5. In the light of the facts and circumstances, as stated

¶28

¶29

the appointment and pass appropriate orders strictly tfr considering the relevant are Matter stands compassionate ground for relaxation of the age, if it is permissible remitted back to the respondent Boar4 to reconsider the same regulations, which applicable to on in accordance with law and dispose of the same within a period of be vitiated. four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, it is hereby set aside.

¶30

Board. Ordered accordingly. Office is directed to communicate the order to respondent

¶31

¶32

hnm/

¶33

Vinayaka Murlidhara Joshi v. the Managing Director Karnataka Power Transmission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinayaka Murlidhara Joshi v. the Managing Director Karnataka Power Transmission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Special Land Acquisition Officer Hidkal Dam Vs Ganapati Kadappa Kumbar

R S Kayi S/O Sodalingappa Vs Bijapur Grameena Bank Rep by Its Chairman

Govinda Ranga Rao Kulkarni Vs Bijapur Grameena Bank Rep by Its Chairman

Laxmana Vs the Commissioner City Municipality

Ratnavva Vs Hubli Electricity Supply Co. Ltd.

S N Haveri Vs the General Manager (Administrative and Hrd)