Disposed

Mr Satish Gajanan Pawar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Mar 2012WP/31825/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the eligibility criteria for Veterinary Inspector posts, claiming their diploma was equivalent to the statutory requirement. The High Court acknowledged the grievance but found detailed quashing unjustifiable.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider the representation dated 5th August 2008 submitted by the petitioners and dispose of the issue within a reasonable time.

Mr Satish Gajanan Pawar Vs the State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 6T{ DAY OF MARCH, 2012,

¶3

BEFORE:

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. PATIL

¶5

W.P.NOs.3 1825828 OF 2008 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

Mr,Satish Gajanan Pawar, Uchagaon, Tq & Dist: Belgaum. Age: 24 years,

¶8

R/o Muchandi, Mr.Gajanan Krishna Wapre, Tq & dist: Belgaum. 2. Age: 21 years,

¶9

Uchagaon, Tq & dist: Belgaum. 3. Amol Narayan Patil, Age: 21 years,

¶10

Jyoti S Navagekar, Uchagaon, 4. Tq & dist: Belgaum. Age: 28 years,

¶11

Petitioners

¶12

(By Shri Manjunath Meled, Adv.)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Government of Karnataka, The State of Karnataka, Rep by Chief Secretary,

¶15

1. (KPSC), Udyoga Soudha, 2. 5. Department of Animal Husbandry Karnataka Public Service Commission, (By Shri P.H.Gotkhindi, HCGP for R1,R2, R3 & R5, Department of Animal Husbandary Respondents Education and Director of Vidhana Soudha, State Council of Vocational Government of Karnataka, Vishweshwaravva Towers, bangalore. Bangalore. Bangalore. Shri K.L.Patil, Adv. for R4.) Bangalore. Bangalore. Vocational Education, services, The Directorate, The Principal Secretary, The Secretary, The Secretary, And Fisheries, Vidhana Soudha, And Veterinar

¶16

¶17

of the of India Praying respondents to include the equivalent course of job oriented inspectors Constitution pre-university Diploma in Dairving for the post of Veterinary direct dated produced at 17.03.2008 the notification Annexure-C. 227 These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 & in to

¶18

These Writ Petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing in “B” Group this day, the Court made the following:

¶19

¶20

ORDER

¶21

submitted Inspectors in Notification dated petitioners Petitioners in these petitions have sought for a the post the the equivalent course of Job Oriented Pre-University Annexure C and to consider the representation dated 5th August 17th Mach 2008 vide Veterinary 2008, Annexure F. Diploma Dairying writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to include in vide of by for

¶22

respondent passed this Diploma Course and the certificate depicts issued dated petitions is that they have studied the Job Oriented Pre 17th fourth a State Council of Vocational Education, which involves All the petitioners have with the stood thus, the Vocational Education. University Diploma course in Dairying conducted by the extensive of Animal husbandry. When things Notification The only grievance of the petitioners in these privilege to use the title that the job oriented Pre-University Diploma is awarded PUC Diploma in

¶23

¶24

candidates to fill up 300 posts of Veterinary Inspectors through submitted and respondent. submit their representation vide Annexure F dated 5th their request and treat them as eligible to the post of applications educational subjects. their applications petitioners process the Examination. fourth the the the Veterinary Inspectors, the eligibility was PUG (Science) August 2008, requesting the authorities to consider Veterinary Inspectors on par with others. In view of non qualification as ‘pass in PUG with biology’ as one of the 2003, provides But the notification dated March yet with Biology as one of the subjects are eligible to apply Services competitive have Therefore, they were constrained to calling March 2008 shows that only students possessing PUG Notification from Regional They noticed that earlier, for the post of The date of the examination is not fixed The eligible for of Or equivalent of it. for the said post. in the Department of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary to for Office of 17th

¶25

// / ——

¶26

¶27

on file. by of 3. the representation submitted I have perused the grounds urged in the consideration petitions and gone through the other material available petitioners, they felt necessitated to present these writ petitions, seeking appropriate reliefs, as stated supra.

¶28

detailed representation vide Annexure But, the said representations are in direction time is not justifiable. to 4. The only grievance of the petitioners is that, 21 Therefore, it would suffice for F jointly, to to of by petitioners dated 5th August 2008, to meet the ends ofjustice. the request respondents 1 to 5. and this neither considered nor disposed of till date. Keeping the respondents to consider the representation submitted persons, including the petitioners have submitted a the issue not Court appropriate petitioners abeyance considering the representation within the reasonable

¶29

¶30

vide 5th August 2008 to In the light of the discussion made above, the respondents to to respondents representation dated submitted by consider petitioners others the already considered and disposed of, by now.

¶31

3UDGE

¶32

BMV*

Mr Satish Gajanan Pawar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Satish Gajanan Pawar v. the State of Karnataka

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

Laxmana Vs the Commissioner City Municipality

Ratnavva Vs Hubli Electricity Supply Co. Ltd.

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

Jayaram Krishnappa Shetty Vs the Labour Commissioner and Presiding Officer

V R Shyanbhag S/O R P Shyanbhag Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Santhosh S/O Basavaraj Ambadagatti Vs the Chief General Manager Karnataka Telecom Circle