Dismissed

Sri M Muralidhara v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Apr 2022WP/10328/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition. The petitioner sought direction to place him in independent charge as Superintending Engineer. The Court held this amounts to a demand for promotion, which a person has no vested right to. Furthermore, the relief sought to quash proceedings constituted a separate cause of action. Thus, the petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as being devoid of merits.

Sri M Muralidhara Vs the State of Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 08^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO.10328/2021 (S-KSAT)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. M.MURALIDHARA, S/O K.MUNISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PRESENTLY WAITING FOR POSTING, DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE – 560 001. (BY SRI A.RAJESH, ADV.) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, PORTS AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶10

... PETITIONER

¶11

... RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SRI B.RAJENDRAPRASAD, HCGP.)

¶13

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20/08/2020 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION NO.1129/2020 (ANNEXURE-A) AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION NO.1129/2020 AS SOUGHT FOR BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON’BLE TRIBUNAL (ANNEXURE-B) ETC.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ‘HEARING ON INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION’ THIS DAY, G.NARENDAR J, MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶18

learned High Court Government Pleader.

¶19

The following is the relief that has been sought for by the petitioner before the Tribunal.

¶20

“ (i) Direct the respondent to immediately place the applicant in independent charge of the post of Superintending Engineer under Rule 32 of KCSRs making it subject to the outcome of criminal proceedings initiated under Special Case No.15/2016 and Departmental proceedings initiated against him vide Articles of Charge dated 21.05.2018, with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice and equity.

¶21

¶22

(ii) Pass such other order/orders in the circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice and equity.”

¶23

In our considered opinion the same amounts to a demand for a direction to the respondent to promote the petitioner.

¶24

The settled law is that a person who is eligible is entitled to seek to be considered for promotion and has no vested right of promotion. Admittedly, the petitioner has been proceeded against and a criminal case has been registered in which he claims he has been acquitted and that despite the same the departmental enquiry has been continued. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the relief sought for in the above form cannot be granted. Accordingly, we do not see merit in the writ petition. Secondly it is contended by the petitioner that an application has been made seeking to amend the prayers, thereby permitting to challenge the Articles of Charges and

¶25

quash the departmental enquiry itself. The said relief sought for constitutes a separate cause of action and the matter would require independent pleadings. The petition

¶26

¶27

does not survive for consideration on the short ground that the relief sought for is misconceived. In that view of the matter, reserving such liberty to the petitioner to initiate such proceedings, the instant petition is dismissed as being devoid of merits.

¶28

Sd/JUDGE

¶29

Sd/JUDGE

¶30

ykl CT-HR

Sri M Muralidhara v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M Muralidhara v. the State of Karnataka

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

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri. Dinesh M Kalgutkar

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri K M Nagaraj

The State of Karnataka Vs Mr. K Gangamuthaiah

Sree Bhagawan Maruthi Temple Trust (Regd) Vs Mr.Tushar Girinath

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri Richard Mathew

Ajay R Gowda Vs Janaki Krishnappa