Dismissed

Mr. B L Neelakantachari v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Mar 2024WP/25191/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought promotion from Bill Collector to First Grade Revenue Inspector effective 2010 via writ petition. Court dismissed the petition due to lack of vacancies and absence of petitioner's interest in pursuing the matter over 12 years.

What did the court decide?

None. The writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution was dismissed as it was devoid of merits due to lack of vacancies and petitioner's lack of interest.

Mr. B L Neelakantachari Vs State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:11418 WP No. 25191 of 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

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

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.25191 OF 2012 (S-PRO)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR.B L NEELAKANTACHARI S/O B L LINGACHAR AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/A NO.149, KOLIBURUGINA HATTI DODDAPETE CHITHRADURGA-577002

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.K R MURALIKRISHNA, ADVOCATE (ABSENT))

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GOVT OF KARNATAKA VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560001.

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEAPRTMENT GOVT OF KARNATAKA, VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560001.

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:11418 WP No. 25191 of 2012

¶16

COMMISSIONER OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION) GOVT OF KARNATAKA 10^TH FLOOR, VISHVESHWARAIAH TOWER BANGALORE-560001.

¶17

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA DISTRICT CHITRADURGA -577002.

¶18

PROJECT DIRECTOR URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL CHITHRADURGA DISTRICT CHITHRADURGA -577002.

¶19

MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL CHITRADURGA PIN-577002.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.V.SHIVAREDDY AGA FOR R1 TO R4, R5 & R6 - SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO PROMOTE THE PETITIONER FROM THE PRESENT CADRE OF BILL COLLECTOR TO FIRST GRADE REVENUE INSTPETOR FROM 04.09.2010 THE DATE OF PASSING THE REQUISITE QUALIFICATION BY THE PETITIONER AT ANNEXURE-E AND TO PROMOTE HIM TO THE CADRE OF FIRST GRADE REVENUE INSPECTOR IN PAR WITH THE OTHER

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:11418 WP No. 25191 of 2012

¶24

EMPLOYEES IMMEDIATELY WITHOUT MAKING ANY FURTHER DELAY.

¶25

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

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The captioned petition is filed by the petitioner to

¶28

issue a writ of mandamus to respondents to promote the petitioner from the cadre of Bill Collector to the cadre of First Grade Revenue Inspector with effect from

¶29

04.09.2010.

¶30

Facts leading to the case are as under:

¶31

The petitioner was appointed as Bill Collector on

¶32

11.04.1990. The petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction of respondents in not promoting petitioner to the cadre of First Grade Revenue Inspector, though the petitioner possessed requisite qualification for promotion as on 04.09.2010.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:11418 WP No. 25191 of 2012

¶35

On meticulous examination of material available on record, this Court would find that respondent No.3 on receipt of recommendation sent by respondent No.4 has sent communication indicating that the proposal of considering the promotion of the petitioner and others will be taken up for consideration as and when vacancy is created.

¶36

Since respondent No.3 in his communication has indicated that there are no vacancies and the petitioner and similarly placed employees’ promotion will be considered as and when the vacancy is created, no mandamus can be issued at this juncture.

¶37

This Court also harbored the impression that petitioner lacks interest in prosecuting the captioned petition. Though petition was filed in the year 2012, the petitioner has not disclosed whether he has been granted promotion or has faced denial over the past 12 years.

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:11418 WP No. 25191 of 2012

¶39

¶40

Unfortunately, respondent No.6 has also not chosen to

¶41

contest the petition despite notice being served on him.

¶42

For the foregoing reasons, petition is devoid of

¶43

merits. Hence, dismissed .

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

HA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30

Mr. B L Neelakantachari v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. B L Neelakantachari 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

Rural High School Committee (R) Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr N D Veeranna Gowda Vs the Secretary

Smt. Anasuya S Shahapur Vs State of Karnataka

Dr.a.Murugeppa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri M Venkateshaiah Vs Union of India

Francis D Souza Vs Syndicate Bank