Allowed

C T Jayakumar v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC22 Sept 2021RP/53/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this review petition challenging a judgment that dismissed a writ regarding the petitioner's village assistant appointment, the court found an error apparent on the face of the record. The judgment noted the third respondent had not invited applications when factually incorrect as records show the Tahsildar did issue a notification.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 02.11.2020 is recalled and the review petition is allowed and restored to file.

C T Jayakumar Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Karnataka HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶5

REVIEW PETITION NO.53/2021

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

C.T. JAYAKUMAR S/O G. THIMMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT CHIKKADEVANURU VILALGE SAKARAYAPATNA HOBLI, KADURU TALUK CHIKKAMANGALURU DISIRCT PIN CODE 577135.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI ROOPESHA B., ADVOCATE (VC))

¶10

AND :

¶11

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-567101.

¶12

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER THARIKERE DIVISION, THARIKERE TOWN, CHIKKAMANGALURU DISTRICT-577119.

¶13

THE TAHSILDAR OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR KADURU TALUK, KADURU TOWN CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577548.

¶14

M.G. KALLESHA S/O GOVINDAPPA MAJOR R/AT MATTIGHATTA VILLAGE AND POST

¶15

¶16

KASABA HOLI, KADURU TGALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT. PIN CODE-577548.

¶17

… RESPONDENTS

¶18

(SMT. M.C.NAGASHREE, A.G.A. FOR R1 TO R3(PA))

¶19

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 READ WITH ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO PASS AN ORDER ALLOWING THE PRESENT REVIEW PETITION SEEKING REVIEW OF THE FINAL ORDER DATED 02.11.2020 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP NO. 13730/2018 (S-RES).

¶20

THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING :

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This Court by its order dated 02.11.2020 dismissed

¶23

the writ petition by observing as follows :

¶24

"5. The fact remains that the third respondent without inviting applications from all eligible candidates and following the selection process in a manner known to law had appointed the petitioner as Village Assistant. Hence, no fault can be found with the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner setting aside the order of appointment of the petitioner by the third respondent."

¶25

2. The petitioner has filed this Review Petition

¶26

seeking review of the order dated 02.11.2020 on the ground that the observation at paragraph 5 is factually

¶27

¶28

incorrect and a Notification was, in fact, issued by the Tahsildar inviting applications from eligible candidates.

¶29

The learned Additional Government Advocate, on perusal of the original records, would submit that the Tahsildar had indeed invited applications on 30.09.2013 from eligible candidates to be appointed to the post of Grama Sahayak. Therefore, the observation which was made on the submission made by the learned Additional Government Advocate, then, appears to be erroneous and is an error apparent on the face of the record. Therefore, accepting the submission of both the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate, the Review Petition is allowed and the order dated 02.11.2020 stands recalled. The petition is restored to file.

¶30

Post the matter before the Bench having roster.

¶31

Sd/JUDGE

¶32

hnm

C T Jayakumar v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C T Jayakumar v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Sainandana Developers Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Mohammed Meraj Ul Haq Taqui Vs the Commissioner

Sri Gururaju Vs State of Karnataka

Venugopal H R Vs the Commissioner

Dr Muhammed Majeed Vs the Commissioner

Thyagaraja Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka