Allowed

Poorvika M.G., v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Jun 2024WP/14659/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by an employee aggrieved by the arbitrary discontinuation of her services based on the oral instruction of an MLA. The Court quashed the impugned letter preventing replacement and ordered the continuation of services.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the communication dated 16.02.2024 and directed the second respondent to ensure the continuation of the petitioner's services with liberty to take action against the petitioner strictly in acc

Poorvika M.G., Vs the State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:22023 WP No. 14659 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 14659 OF 2024 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

POORVIKA M.G., W/O GIRISH H S, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/O HUKKALI AASANABALU VILLAGE, SRINGERI TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577139.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. BHAT VISHNU JANARDHANA.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by ANAND N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, BACKWARD CLASSES WELFARE DEPARTMENT, ROOM NO.229, 2^ND FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, 'BANGALORE-560001.

¶13

THE WELFARE OFFICER BACKWARD CLASSES WELFARE DEPARTMENT, TALUK BACKWARD CLASSES EXTENSION OFFICERS OFFICE TALUK PANCHAYAT BUILDING, SRINGERI-577139.

¶14

SHRI. T.D. RAJEGOWDA MEMBER OF LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, SRINGERI CONSTITUENCY,

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:22023 WP No. 14659 of 2024

¶17

ROOM NO.412-413, LEGISLATURES BHAWANA-2, BENGALURU-560001.

¶18

4. THE MANAGER

¶19

AKHILA ENTERPRISES, REGD. OFFICE, BARMAPPA NAGAR, 2^ND CROSS, SHIVAMOGGA-577402.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.NAVEEN CHANDRASHEKAR., AGA FOR R1 & R2)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED LETTER DATED 16/02/2024 BEARING NO. ISSUED BY THE R2, AS PER ANNEXURE-C AND CONSEQUENTIAL ORAL TERMINATION WEF 01/03/2024 AS THE SAME IS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW. B) DIRECT THE R2 TO INITIATE NECESSARY ACTION BY INFORMING THE PRIVATE AGENCY -R4 TO REINSTATE THE PETITIONER AS DATE ENTRY OPERATOR WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT WITH CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS OF PAY AND OTHER ALLOWANCES WHICH WAS DUE TO HER FOR THE PERIOD SHE WAS KEPT OUT OF DUTY FOR NO FAULT OF HER.

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioner is working with the second respondent’s office as a Data Entry Operator, and the petitioner is aggrieved with the second respondent’s Communication dated 16.02.2024. The second

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:22023 WP No. 14659 of 2024

¶28

respondent by the impugned Communication has informed the Outsource Agency through whom the petitioner's services is engaged to discontinue the petitioner's services because a member of legislative assembly has caused Communication in this regard. The petitioner has produced a copy of the communication from such elected representative as

¶29

Annexure-C.

¶30

Sri Bhat Vishnu Janardhana, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Naveen Chandrashekar, the learned Additional Government Advocate who is called upon to accept notice for the first and second respondents, are heard for final disposal of the petition dispensing with notice to the third and fourth respondents. It is seen from the Communication dated 16.02.2024 addressed by the aforesaid elected representative that he has instructed the second respondent, because of an alleged complaint by the public, to take measures to

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:22023 WP No. 14659 of 2024

¶33

replace the petitioner with another person mentioned in his communication.

¶34

The second respondent, referring to such correspondence, has issued impugned communication. The decision is taken to discontinue the petitioner’s services obviously to accommodate a third person with the petitioner being only informed orally by the agency that her services would not be required henceforth. This Court must intervene lest arbitrariness in decision making prevails to the detriment of those who may not enjoy any political cloud. The rights of a citizen cannot be allowed to be infringed in the manner that is done in the present case. For the foregoing, the following:

¶35

ORDER

¶36

The petition is allowed and the

¶37

second respondent's Communication dated 16.04.2024 [ Annexure-C ] is quashed directing the second respondent to take

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:22023 WP No. 14659 of 2024

¶40

necessary measures, within a week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, to ensure that the petitioner's services are continued and with liberty to the second respondent to take action against the petitioners if there is occasion for the same strictly in accordance with law and not being influenced by any extraneous reasons.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

SA ct:sr

Poorvika M.G., v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Poorvika M.G., 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Niranjan Murthy K Vs State of Karnataka

Dr Venkatesha Vs Mysore University

Sri M H Bhaskar Vs State of Karnataka

K Sunder Raj Vs the Union of India Rep by

Sri. Shekara Vs Principal Secretary to Govt

Mr M Subbanna Vs Union of India