Dismissed

Sri Srinivasa Alias Shrinivasa v. Chief Personnel Officer

Karnataka HC9 Jul 2019WA/975/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed an appeal against a single judge order denying immediate appointment to the appellant, who was found eligible for a land-loser employment quota but faced a vacancy. The bench held no error in directing response to future recruitment drives instead of disturbing existing appointments.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed holding that the appellant's file should be considered in future recruitment rounds.

Sri Srinivasa Alias Shrinivasa Vs Chief… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JULY, 2019

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

¶6

WRIT APPEAL NO.975 OF 2019 (S-RES)

¶7

Between:

¶8

Sri.Srinivasa Alias Shrinivasa S/o Guruva

¶9

Aged about 29 years Residing at Kambadakone Village Kundapura Taluk Udupi District – 576219 ... Appellant

¶10

(By Sri. K.Sathish, Advocate for Sri.M.S.Bhagwat, Advocate)

¶11

And:

¶12

Chief Personnel Officer

¶13

Konkan Railway Corporation Limited

¶14

A Government of India Undertaking

¶15

Belapur Bhavan, Sector 11,

¶16

CBD Belapur,

¶17

Navi Mumbai-400614

¶18

Assistant Personnel Officer (Recruitment) Konkan Railway Corporation Limited

¶19

A Government of India undertaking

¶20

Belapur Bhavan, Sector 11,

CBD Belapur,

Navi Mumbai-400614

... Respondents

(By Sri Omkar Kambi, Advocate for R-1 and 2)

¶25

¶26

This writ appeal is filed under section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, praying to set aside the impugned order dated 19.4.2018 passed in Writ Petition No.7378/2015 by the Hon’ble learned Single Judge insofar as denying the relief of appointment in favour of the appellant is concerned and consequently allow the said writ petition No.7378/2015 as sought for, by the appellant .

¶27

This appeal, coming on for orders, this day, Chief Justice delivered the following:

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

¶30

The challenge is to the order dated 19^th April, 2019

¶31

passed by the learned Single Judge on the writ petition filed by the petitioner.

¶32

The land in Sy.No.5/20 B2, more particularly to the extent described in the writ petition was acquired by way of compulsory acquisition. The petitioner claims to be the grandson of the owner of the acquired land. The petitioner sought employment in the Group-D post under the scheme available with the State Government to provide employment to a member of the family of the land losers. The learned Single Judge, after considering the arguments of the rival parties,

¶33

¶34

came to the conclusion that the petitioner is eligible for getting the appointment. The learned Single Judge passed an order that, as there was no post available, it will be appropriate to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner, if eligible in other respects, when recruitment of the land losers in respect of any other notification is taken up.

¶35

The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the learned Single Judge has not taken into consideration the interim order dated 4^th March 2015, by which, it was observed that, in case the petitioner is successful in the writ petition, the respondents will consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the eligibility even though all the appointments have already been completed. He submitted that in view of this interim order, there is no impediment in the way of directing the respondents to give employment to the appellant.

¶36

We have considered the submissions. It is true that the appellant is held to be eligible. However, as there were no posts available, no relief was granted to the appellant. It is true that in view of the order dated 4^th March 2015, the case of the

¶37

¶38

appellant will have to be examined. However, it is not the case that persons who have been granted employment were ineligible for grant of employment. Therefore, notwithstanding the interim order dated 4^th March 2015, the learned Single Judge did not disturb anyone’s appointment as none of the appointments were made illegally or to ineligible persons.

¶39

Therefore, while exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the learned Single Judge has issued a direction to consider the case of the petitioner whenever such recruitment is conducted.

¶40

We find no error in the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the discretionary and equitable jurisdiction. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶41

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

Cm/-

Sri Srinivasa Alias Shrinivasa v. Chief Personnel Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Srinivasa Alias Shrinivasa v. Chief Personnel Officer

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

Umashankar K.V. Vs the Government of Karnataka

Smt. v. Girija Vs the State Bank of India

Karnataka Sponge Iron Manufacturers Vs Union of India

Sri Ayyappa Naik Vs State of Karnataka

The Gomala Samrakshana Samithi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. S. R. Shravan Vs State of Karnataka