The High Court quashed the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal's order that dismissed the petitioner's application in absentia without a written undertaking against promotion claims, remitting the matter for fresh hearing.
Impugned order quashed; matter remitted to Karnataka Administrative Tribunal to hear parties and decide afresh.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.G.M. PATIL
W.P. NO.103796 OF 2018 (S-KAT)
BETWEEN
M.B. BAGOJI, AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT, FROM THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, DISTRICT AGRICULTURAL TRAINING CENTRE, ARABHAVI, C/O. KSSIDC, SHED NO.8-8, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, GOKAK-591010.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ARUN L.NEELOPANT AND SRI SHRIHARSH A.NEELOPANT, ADVOCATES)
AND
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G.K.HIREGOUDAR, GOVT.ADVOCATE)
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.2772/2006 DATED 16.10.2017 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU DISMISSING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT, 1985, AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION NO.2772/2006 FILED BEFORE THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE, J, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Sri Arun L.Neelopant and Sri Shriharsh A.
Neelopant, advocates, for the petitioner.
Advocate for the respondents.
consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3
passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal at Benglauru.
that the original application preferred by the petitioner was dismissed in the absence of the counsel for the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner has never submitted any undertaking that he shall not claim any promotion. It is also urged that the order is based on incorrect factual premises. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate has supported the order passed by the Tribunal.
by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. From perusal of the records, it is evident that the impugned order has been passed in the absence of the counsel for the petitioner. The veracity of the statement made by the learned Government Advocate is required to be gone into in view of the
4
submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has never submitted an undertaking in writing that he shall not claim any promotion.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
Kms
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the order dismissing the application served in the absence of counsel is sustainable given the lack of a written undertaking against claims of promotion.
Whether the impugned order based on incorrect factual premises can be quashed under Article 226.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M.B. Bagoji
The State of Karnataka
Commissioner of Agriculture
Alok Aradhe
P.G.M. Patil
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
