Disposed

Sri. K. M. Gopinathan v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Jan 2024WP/18699/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition contesting a transfer of a protocol officer at a temple. Pending the hearing, the respondents modified the transfer. Finding the original petition no longer viable, the Court disposed of the matter and reserved liberty for representation regarding the new transfer destination. It directed the respondents to act within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed. Liberty reserved to submit representation regarding the new transfer. Respondents to act within eight weeks.

Sri. K. M. Gopinathan Vs the State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:162 WP No. 18699 of 2023

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 18699 OF 2023 (S-TR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. K.M. GOPINATHAN, S/O SHREEDHARA NAMBISHAN V.M, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION CLERK, KUKKE SHRI SUBARMANYASWAMY TEMPLE, KADABA, D.K. DISTRICT, R/AT NOOCHILA HOUSE, SUBRAMANYA POST OFFICE, SULYA TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT - 574 238.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR S, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SUCHITRA 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, M J DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (MUZRAI), Location: HIGH COURT OF M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER FOR HUINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS, 4TH FLOOR, SRI MINTO ANJANEYA SWAMY BHAVAN, ALUR VENKATARAO RAOD, CHAMARAJAPET, BENGALURU - 560 018.

¶14

¶15

NC: 2024:KHC:162 WP No. 18699 of 2023

¶16

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MANGALURU, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 575 001.

¶17

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KUKKE SHRI SUBARMANYASWAMY TEMPLE, KADABA, D.K. DISTRICT - 574 238.

¶18

THE COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT, KUKKE SHRI SUBARMANYASWAMY TEMPLE, KADABA, D.K. DISTIRCT - 574 238, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. B. RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R1 TO R4)

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19/08/2023 BEARING NO. KAMEE 68 MUSEVI 2023 PASSED BY R1 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The captioned writ petition is filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned transfer order dated 19.08.2023, wherein the petitioner, who was serving as a protocol officer at respondent No.4/temple, is transferred as a protocol officer to Sri.Madananteshwara Temple, Karnataka State Choultry, Madhur, Kasargod District.

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:162 WP No. 18699 of 2023

¶27

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would bring

¶28

to the notice of this Court that there is no requisite cadre vacant post at the place where the petitioner is now transferred and therefore, seeks liberty to submit a detailed representation to bring the said fact to the notice of respondent No.2/Commissioner.

¶29

However, pending consideration of this petition, respondent No.2, pursuant to an oral direction issued by this Court, has considered the petitioner's request and he is now transferred to Kadri Sri. Manjunatha Temple, Mangalore.

¶30

Since the petitioner is now transferred to Kadri Sri. Manjunatha Temple, Mangalore, the captioned petition does not survive for consideration. Hence, I pass the following:

¶31

ORDER

¶32

i. The writ petition is disposed of;

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:162 WP No. 18699 of 2023

¶34

ii. If petitioner is aggrieved by transfer to the temple where sanctioned post is not available, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to submit detailed representation in that regard to respondents 1 and 2;

¶35

iii. If such a representation is submitted, respondents 1 and 2 shall act upon the said representation in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the representation.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5 CT: BHK

Sri. K. M. Gopinathan v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. K. M. Gopinathan 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

Sri Dr P Manjunath Vs Vice Chancellor

Sri Jayarajaiah Vs the Joint Registrar of

Sri K Shivananje Gowda Vs Vokkalingara Sangha (Regd)

Sri. Narayana Gowda Vs Mangalore Electricity Supply Company Ltd.

Smt M C Geetha Vs the State of Karnataka

Jagadeesh M Vs the State of Karnataka