Dismissed

Davanagere District Physically Handicapped v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Dec 2021WP/32257/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a recruitment notification for 31 employees in a Cooperative Bank, seeking writs to quash the notification and direct reservation for physically handicapped persons. The Court dismissed the petition as not maintainable because the selected candidates had joined service and were not impleaded as parties, though the issue of reservation was left open for future consideratio

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable. The question of reservation for physically handicapped persons in the co-operative sector was left open for future consideration.

Davanagere District Physically Handicapped Vs State… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.32257 OF 2018 (S-RES-PIL)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

DAVANAGERE DISTRICT PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED PERSONS WELFARE ASSOCIATION(R) NO.21,MAHANAGARA PALIKE COMPLEX, CHETANA HOTEL ROAD, BEHIND KEB OFFICE, DAVANAGERE-577 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SRI T VENKATESHA

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI HARISH GANAPATHY, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001

¶13

THE REGISTRAR OF CO -OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ALI ASKAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001

¶14

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO.311,D.DEVARAJ URS LAYOUT, "A" BLOCK, DAVANAGERE-577 006

¶15

¶16

THE COMMISSIONER OF CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION AUTHORITY, 3^RD FLOOR,TTMC BUILDING, "A" BLOCK,K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGARA, BENGALURU-560 027

¶17

... RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI S.RAJASHEKARA, AGA FOR R1, 2 AND 4; SRI A.MOHAMMED TAHIR, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶19

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE ORDER IN THE SIMILAR NATURE QUASHING NOTIFICATION DATED 18.06.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-E ISSUED BY THE R-3 BANK CALLING APPLICATIONS FOR RECRUITMENT OF 31 EMPLOYEES IN DIFFERENT CADRES HOLDING THE SAME IS ILLEGAL AND AGAINST LAW AND ETC.,

¶21

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The Public Interest Litigation has been filed in the year 2018 seeking the following reliefs:-

¶24

a) Issue writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ or order in the similar nature quashing notification dated 18.6.2018 vide Annexure-E issued by the 3^rd respondent-Bank calling applications for recruitment of 31 employees in different cadres holding the same is illegal and against law.

¶25

b) Issue writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ or order in the similar nature directing the 3^rd respondentBank to reserve posts in respect of physically handicapped persons for recruitment to the 3^rd respondent-Bank.

¶26

¶27

Sri A Mohammed Tahir, learned counsel for respondent No.3 on the basis of statement of objections submits that pursuant to the impugned notification, selection has been done and 31 candidates have been selected and issued with appointment orders on 31.07.2018. The said candidates have been working in different sections of respondent No.3-Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Davanagere district. The petitioner is also aware about the appointment orders issued to the successful candidates and they are not made as parties in the writ petition. Therefore, writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute this position, however, submits that the question before the Court is whether reservation for disabled persons is to be granted in the co-operative sector or not.

¶29

We are of the considered view that since the selection in pursuant to the impugned notification has been completed and selected candidates have already joined and working, however, they are not impleaded in the writ petition as parties, as such, in the given facts and circumstances, the writ petition would not be maintainable

¶30

¶31

and it is accordingly dismissed. However, we leave open the question raised in the writ petition to be considered in some

other case.

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/JUDGE

KPS

Davanagere District Physically Handicapped v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Davanagere District Physically Handicapped v. State of Karnataka

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 Coromandel International Limited Vs the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board

Union of India Vs M/S Rai Bahadur Seth Shreeram Narasingh Das Private Limited

Vijay Kumar v Vs Government of Karnataka

National Law School of India University Vs Rohan Tewari

Sri Farooq Beg Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Ultra Tech Cement Limited Vs State of Karnataka