Allowed

Maharudreshwar S/O Mrutyunjaya Sheelavantar v. the Secretary

Karnataka HC5 Nov 2020WP/148049/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a writ petition by a Town Planner seeking promotion to Deputy Director. The Court directed the Urban Development Department to consider the petitioner's representation dated 18.05.2020 and pass appropriate orders within two months.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No. 1 to consider the representation dated 18.05.2020 and pass appropriate orders within two months.

Maharudreshwar S/O Mrutyunjaya… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

¶5

W.P.No.148049/2020 (S-PRO)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MAHARUDRESHWAR S/O MRUTYUNJAYA SHEELAVANTAR AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: TOWN PLANNER, HUBLI DHARWAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI, R/O: SHREE VAGISHWARI, MATHAPATI ONI, HUBBALLI-580001.

¶8

.. PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI.V.S.KOUJALAGI, ADV.)

¶10

AND:

¶11

1 . THE SECRETARY

¶12

URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶13

2 . THE HUBLI-DHARWAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI-580025, BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶14

.. RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI.VINAYAK S.KULKARNI, AGA FOR R1, SRI.MADANMOHAN M.KHANNUR, ADV. FOR R2)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS OF THE PETITIONER DATED 24.09.2015, 23.01.2016, 28.04.2016, 24.10.2017, 09.09.2019, 13.02.200 AND

¶17

¶18

18.05.2020 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURES C, C1, C2, C3, C4, C5 AND C6 AND PASS NECESSARY ORDERS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶19

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner was appointed as Town Planning Supervisor on 17.03.2001 and thereafter he was promoted as Town Planner by the respondent-authority. The authorities recommended the name of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Assistant Director of Town Planning. The petitioner is eligible for promotion to the post of Deputy Director. Since the petitioner is eligible for promotion to the post of Deputy Director submitted representations as per Annexures-C to C6. The respondents did not consider the representations submitted by the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2 and perused the records.

¶23

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶25

petitioner is eligible for promotion to the post of Deputy Director and the respondents are not promoting the petitioner to the post of Deputy Director. Petitioner submitted several representations on different dates. The respondents did not consider the representations submitted by the petitioner.

¶26

Learned AGA submits that respondent No.1 will consider the representation submitted by the petitioner on 18.05.2020 and pass appropriate order in accordance with

¶27

law. His submission is placed on record.

¶28

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Respondent No.1 is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 18.05.2020 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶29

¶30

6. This Court is not adjudicated rights of the

¶31

parties in this writ petition and all the contentions of the

¶32

parties are kept open.

¶33

Sd/JUDGE

¶34

MBS/-

Maharudreshwar S/O Mrutyunjaya Sheelavantar v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maharudreshwar S/O Mrutyunjaya Sheelavantar v. the Secretary

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

Shri Lakshmi Venkateshwara Saw Mill Vs the Chief Conservator of Forest

Rajeshwari W/O Rajashekhar Ballari Vs National Highwa Auathority of India

Kallappa Murugeppa Awati Vs the Deputy Commissioner

One Roof Solutions Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Amaragundappa S/O Basappa Vs the State of Karnataka

The New Vijaya Recreation Club (R) Vs State of Karnataka