Allowed

Gurumallappa v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Dec 2022WP/23582/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought transfer of authorization on compassionate grounds. Court quashed order rejecting petition due to lack of 10th standard qualification. Held that such educational requirement and age restriction do not apply for compassionate transfers.

What did the court decide?

Impugned endorsement dated 10.11.2022 quashed; Respondent No.2 directed to reconsider application within 12 weeks.

Gurumallappa Vs State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 23582 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 23582 OF 2022 (GM-PDS)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

GURUMALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, S/O LATE M.C.CHANNABASAPPA, R/O KANNEGALA VILLAGE, GUNDLUPET TALUK, CHAMARAJNAGAR DISTRICT – 571 318.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.SHIVARAMU H C., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, Digitally signed by DEPARTMENT OF FOOD PADMAVATHI B K AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, Location: HIGH COURT OF VIKAS SOUDHA, KARNATAKA DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶13

THE DEPUTY DIRCTOR OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT, CHAMARAJANAGAR – 571 318.

¶14

¶15

WP No. 23582 of 2022

¶16

THE THASILDAR, GUNDLUPET TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT – 571 318.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI.M.VINOD KUMAR, AGA)

¶19

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 10.11.2022 ISSUED BY THE R2 IN NO.SA V PA/CR/41/2022-23 AT ANNEXURE – B AND ETC.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an endorsement dated 10.11.2022 declining to accept the transfer of authorization of the petitioner on compassionate grounds on the score that the petitioner does not have a qualification of 10th standard as is required in law.

¶23

Heard Sri. Shivaramu H.C., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. M. Vinod Kumar, learned AGA appearing for the respondents and have perused the material on record.

¶24

¶25

WP No. 23582 of 2022

¶26

This Court in an identical circumstances has passed

¶27

the following order in W.P.No.17048/2021 disposed on 20.09.2021, which reads as follows:

¶28

"The subject matter of this Writ Petition is substantially similar to the one in W.P.No.17131/2018 disposed off by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 8.2.2019, copy whereof is at Annexure-F; at para Nos.9 & 10 of the order, said judgment reads as under:

¶29

“From close scrutiny of the aforesaid paragraph, it is evident that in W.P.No.22448/2015 which was decided by an order dated 21.09.2016, it has been held that the requirement with regard to having passed SSLC and restriction of age is not applicable when the transfer of authorization is sought on compassionate ground. The aforesaid finding has admittedly attained finality and is binding on the respondents as they have not challenged the same either by filing a review petition or by filing a writ appeal. Therefore this Court finds no reason to take a different view.

¶30

10. In the result, the impugned endorsement dated 23.03.2018 is hereby quashed and set aside and a direction is issued to respondent No.1 to take note of the application filed by the petitioner and to consider the same for transfer of the authorization on compassionate ground as expeditiously as possible, but not later than eight weeks from the date on which a copy of this order is furnished.”

¶31

2. The Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.932-933/1974 between A.V.VINODA & ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS COMMISSIONER & SECRETARY disposed of on 11.12.1974, has held that the Court should treat likecases alike and if relief is granted to a litigant, similar relief cannot be denied to other similarly circumstanced litigant as well, there being no derogatory circumstances.

¶32

¶33

WP No. 23582 of 2022

¶34

In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is allowed; impugned endorsement dated 03.09.2021 at Annexure-B is quashed; second respondent is directed to consider the petitioner’s application without reference to age and qualification.

¶35

Time for compliance is two months. No costs."

¶36

In the light of the fact that the issue in the lis

¶37

stands covered to the orders passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (supra) , I deem it appropriate to pass the following:

¶38

ORDER

¶39

I. The writ petition is allowed.

¶40

II. The endorsement dated 10.11.2022 stands quashed.

¶41

III. Respondent No.2 is directed to reconsider the application of the petitioner bearing in mind the observations in the course of the order within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29

Gurumallappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurumallappa 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Vishwas Shetty Vs Mrs Preethi K Rao

Healthcare Global Enterprises Limited Vs Union of India

M. Rajendra Babu Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. v Ramanujam Vs the Authorised Officer

Krishi Infratech Vs Union of India

Smt R Aruna @ Aruna Y R Vs State of Karnataka