The High Court appealed for writ jurisdiction sought quashing of an Administrative Tribunal order rejecting the petitioner's claim due to eight-year delay and age. The Court found no merit in the claim and dismissed the petition as devoid of merits.
Writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO.5017/2022 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
SMT KUSUMA KUMARI S W/O MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS PRESENTLY WORKING AS DIRECTOR (EXAMINATION) PRE-UNIVERSITY BOARD MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU - 560 003 R/O HOSUE NO. 70/1 BETWEEN 13TH AND 14TH CROSS, EAST PARK ROAD, MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU - 560 003
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI M.VINAYAKEERTHI, ADV. FOR SRI H.M.UMESH, ADV.)
AND:
2
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SHILPA S.GOGI, HCGP.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ORDER OR DIRECTION, IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT, QUASHING/SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28/07/2021 IN APPLICATION NO.4721/2017 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A BEARING ARBITRARY, ERRONEOUS AND OPPOSED TO LAW, EQUITY AND JUSTICE ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ‘PRELIMINARY HEARING’ THIS DAY, G.NARENDAR J, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1.
3
Application No.4721/2017. The application has been primarily rejected on the ground of unexplained extra-ordinary delay of nearly eight years.
subject matter of litigation before this Court. We do not find the petitioner having been alert enough to challenge either the selection of respondent No.3 or the alleged mischief said to have been played and which went to the aid of respondent No.3.
4
Apparently, there is no explanation for the extra-ordinary delay of more than eight years. That apart, we also see that the petitioner is well beyond the age of 40 years. In that view of the matter, we do not find any error in the reasoning set-out by the Tribunal.
Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merits is rejected.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
dn/CT-HR
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal acted in error in rejecting the petitioner's application on the ground of unexplained extraordinary delay exceeding eight years?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SMT KUSUMA KUMARI S
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSIONER
SMT. LATHA KUMARI K S
G. NARENDAR
M.G.S. KAMAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
