Disposed

Sri. C N Murthy v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Aug 2024WP/21632/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging an interim order of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal staying a posting order in a dispute over an Executive Engineer post in KIADB. The court found premature adjudication appropriate since the Tribunal had scheduled further arguments, left all aspects open, and closed the petition without deciding any substantive issue.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri. C N Murthy Vs the State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:33060-DB WP No. 21632 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024 PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA WRIT PETITION NO. 21632 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. C. N. MURTHY, S/O LATE NARASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KIADB, R/AT BHAVANI NILAYA, 2^ND MAIN ROAD, SHANKARPURA, NEAR B H ROAD, TUMKURU 572102.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. NAGARAJAPPA A., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by NANDINI D Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, 3^RD FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE 560001

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE,KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE 560001

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:33060-DB WP No. 21632 of 2024

¶17

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, KHANIJA BHAVAN, BANGALORE 560001

¶18

SMT. SUSHMA S W/O LAKSHMI NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KIADB, RANGE OFFICE, METAGALLI, KRS ROAD, MYSORE DISTRICT - 570001 R/AT HOUSE NO.1, SUDARSHAN, 3^RD MAIN, 2^ND CROSS, BHSC 4^TH BLOCK, BANASHANKARI 3^RD STAGE, BANGALORE 560085.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3, SMT. LAKSHMI IYENGAR, SENIOR COUNSEL AND SRI. K.S. VENKATARAMANA, ADV. FOR C/R4.)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE AN ORDER OR DIRECTION OR WRIT IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU DATED 06/08/2024 MARKED AT ANNEXURE-D IN APPLICATION NO.3892/2024 ETC.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:33060-DB WP No. 21632 of 2024

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

¶27

Heard both sides.

¶28

What is under challenge before this Court in this writ petition is the interim order passed by the Tribunal staying the operation of the order impugned before it.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had already assumed charge of the post pursuant to the order impugned before the Tribunal on 05.08.2024 and that the orders of posting had been issued on the basis of directions issued by this Court in Annexure-R4(4) produced before the Tribunal. It is further contended that noticing the fact that the petitioner has assumed the charge on 05.08.2024 and Contempt of Court Case filed by the petitioner came to be closed by the Co-equal Bench of this Court on the same day.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the private respondent herein who was the applicant

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:33060-DB WP No. 21632 of 2024

¶32

before the Tribunal was only a deputationist from the Public Works Department and would have no right to insist that she shall be retained in the post giving preference to a regular holder of the post. However, we notice that 10% of the posts of Executive Engineer in the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (KIADB) has to be filled up with by deputation from the Public Works Department in terms of the Cadre and Recruitment Rules.

¶33

Having considered the contentions advanced on either side, we are of the opinion that the consideration of the contentions raised by the parties in this writ petition would be a premature exercise since the Tribunal has posted the matter on 29.08.2024 for further arguments on the application.

¶34

Further, we are of the opinion that all the aspects of the matter including Annexure-C are to be considered by the Tribunal in accordance with law. The parties submit that there will be no prolonging of the proceedings before the Tribunal and that arguments can be advanced at the earliest.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:33060-DB WP No. 21632 of 2024

¶37

In view of the above, all the aspects of the matter

¶38

are left open to be decided by the Tribunal after hearing the

¶39

parties. Accordingly, the petition stands closed.

¶40

Sd/(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

¶41

Sd/(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE

¶42

SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

Sri. C N Murthy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sri. C N Murthy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri K Prashanth Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Dhananjaya D S Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Shwetha K B Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. v. Anjinappa @ v. v. Anjinappa Vs Smt. v. a. Lakshmi

Sagar Vs State of Karnataka by

M/S Sgk Agencies Private Limited Vs M/S Bremels Rubber Industries Private Limited