Disposed

A H Nagaraj v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Jan 2023WP/25652/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an Administrative Tribunal order regarding temporary postings. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's direction to limit the posting period but granted leave to the petitioner and another respondent to file a representation for permanent postings.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of by affirming the Tribunal's directions and granting leave to make a representation for permanent postings.

A H Nagaraj Vs State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 25652 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH WRIT PETITION NO. 25652 OF 2022 (S-KSAT)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

Digitally signed by NANDINI D Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶10

A.H. NAGARAJ S/O LATE A.R.K.HANUMANTAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS CHIEF OFFICER TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL DEVANAHALLI BANGALORE RURAL-562110.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR P., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT 4^TH FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001.

¶15

DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AMBEDKAR ROAD, 9^TH AND 10^TH FLOOR VISHVESHWARAIAH TOWER SAMPANGI RAMA NAGAR BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560001.

¶16

¶17

WP No. 25652 of 2022

¶18

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU-560027.

¶19

DODDAMALAVAIAH CHIEF OFFICER TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, ANEKAL

¶20

BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT – 803 163.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR DESAI, AGA FOR R1 & R3, SRI. V. LAKSHMINARAYANA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR ANUSHA.L, ADV. FOR C/R-4.)

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14/12/2022 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NO.5523/2022 (PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-A) AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION NO.5523/2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER (PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-B) ETC.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, G.NARENDAR J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned AGA appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 3 and the learned Senior counsel Sri. V. Lakshminarayana, appearing on behalf of respondent No.4.

¶27

¶28

WP No. 25652 of 2022

¶29

2. An application i.e., Application No.5523/2022

¶30

came to be virtually disposed of though it is ordered as dismissed by issuing a direction in the following manner:-

¶31

”9. Hence, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER

¶32

The application is dismissed. However, a direction is issued to the 1^st respondent to modify the notification dated 17.11.2022 limiting the temporary posting of the applicant to a maximum period of six months in order to meet the ends of justice.”

¶33

3. After hearing the learned counsel, it is apparent

¶34

that the Tribunal got carried away by the fact that the postings are being made for a limited period and in order to meet the exigencies that have arisen in the Department and hence, the Tribunal has presumed the order impugned as a working arrangement and accordingly, has also directed the respondent – Department to reconsider the postings.

¶35

¶36

WP No. 25652 of 2022

¶37

4. The relief granted being very limited in nature

¶38

and majority of the period having lapsed and another three months remaining, we do not intend to interfere with the order not only for the reasons noted by the Tribunal but also to enable the parties to give an appropriate representation and request postings of a permanent nature rather than leaving it open to the respondents.

¶39

In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of by affirming the directions issued by the Tribunal and further granting leave to the petitioner and private respondent to make a representation to grant them postings of a permanent nature.

¶40

With the above observations, the writ petition stands

¶41

disposed of. Costs made easy.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

DN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11

A H Nagaraj v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A H Nagaraj 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Meenakshamma a N Vs the State of Karnataka

Nhdpl South Private Ltd. Vs Sri. Nirvikar Singh

M/S. Allied Digital Services Ltd., Vs the Oxford College of Engineering

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri B Ramaswamy

Dr Guruprasad S D Vs the State of Karnataka

Sunanda Vs Sri B Suresh Gowda