Dismissed

Basavva W/O Subhash Madiwalar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Jan 2023WP/75998/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad Bench dismissed a writ petition challenging a provisional selection list and an old representation. The court held the petition was not maintainable as no legal right existed to challenge the list. Regarding the representation filed over a decade ago, it was dismissed due to efflux of time.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as it was not maintainable and the representation was too old to be accepted.

Basavva W/O Subhash Madiwalar Vs the State of… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 75998 of 2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 75998 OF 2013 (S-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

BASAVVA W/O SUBHASH MADIWALAR AGED: ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/O: INDIRANAGAR, KUSHTAGI, DISTRICT: KOPPAL.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. BASAVARAJ GODACHI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶13

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR

¶14

WOMAN AND CHILD WELFARE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, KOPPAL.

¶15

THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL

¶16

KAVITHA D/O. AWIVEPPA KONSAGAR R/O: KUSHTAGI, DISTRICT: KOPPAL.

¶17

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOPPAL DISTRICT, KOPPAL

¶18

¶19

WP No. 75998 of 2013

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY VINAYAK KULKARNI, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 AND R5; R4 SERVED)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED:25/02/2013 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-E. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Heard Sri. Basavaraj Godachi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Vinayak Kulkarni, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5.

¶25

In this petition, the petitioner has challenged

¶26

the provisional selection list vide Annexure-H to the writ petition and also sought for consideration of the representation dated 15.11.2012 (Annexure-J) to the writ petition.

¶27

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for

¶28

the parties, and taking into consideration the factual aspects that the petitioner herein has challenged the provisional selection list (Annexure-H) to the writ petition,

¶29

¶30

WP No. 75998 of 2013

¶31

I am of the view that, the writ petition does not survive for consideration in view of the fact that, there is no legal right exists with the petitioner to challenge the provisional selection list and in that view of the matter, I am of the view that, the writ petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶32

However, taking into consideration of the fact that, the petitioner has made a representation dated 15.11.2012 to the respondent No.5 and due to efflux of time, the same cannot be accepted at this juncture, as the said representation has been made more than ten years ago. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶33

Sd/JUDGE

¶34

SVH

¶35

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38

Basavva W/O Subhash Madiwalar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basavva W/O Subhash Madiwalar 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

Sri M G Srinivasa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri M Uday Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Krishna Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Gangawwa W/O Nagappa Kamble, Vs the Commanding Officer

Raghavendra S/O Virupakshappa Halavi Vs the State of Karnataka

The Management of Nwkrtc, Vs Janardan Nair S/O Krishnan Nair