Nagaraja. S. v. Vs State of Karnataka

NAGARAJA S.V. S/O SRI VENKATARANGAIAH .S AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, WORKING AS JUNIOR TRAINING OFFICER, IN WORKSHOP CALCULATION AND SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING DRAWING, SRI RAGHAVENDRA INDUSTRIAL TRAINING CENTRE, 9^TH CROSS, S.S. PURAM, TUMKUR-572102.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI SUBRAMANYA BHAT M., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001

¶16

REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY.

¶17

THE COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING, KAUSHALYA BHAVAN, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE-29.

¶18

THE DIRECTOR EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING, KAUSHALYA BHAVAN, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE-29.

¶19

THE JOINT DIRECTOR (TRAINING), BANGALORE DIVISION,

¶20

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:21689 WP No. 14735 of 2023

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

KAUSHALYLA BHAVAN, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE-29.

¶23

THE JOINT DIRECTOR (AFFILIATION), BANGALORE DIVISION, KAUSHALYLA BHAVAN, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE-29.

¶24

THE PRINCIPAL, SRI RAGHAVENDRA INDUSTRIAL TRAINING CENTRE, 9^TH CROSS, S.S. PURAM, TUMKUR-572102.

¶25

THE SECRETARY, SRI VEERABHADRASWAMY EDUCATION SOCIETY, SUSHEELA BUILDING, 7^TH CROSS, S.S. PURAM, TUMKUR-572102.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI BHOJEGOWDA T. KOLLER, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-5; R-6 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED; SRI BALAKRISHNA K., ADVOCATE FOR R-7)

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER AND GRANT THE FOLLOWING RELIEFS-QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO.UTHAE/THA/SUM-1/VIVA-218/1997-98 DATED 23.05.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT, THE ORIGINAL OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-K, AS THE SAME IS ARBITRARY, IRRATIONAL AND UNREASONABLE BESIDES VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 14 AND 16 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ETC.

¶29

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:21689 WP No. 14735 of 2023

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

In this writ petition, the petitioner has called in question the endorsement dated 23.05.2023 issued by

¶35

respondent No.2, whereby the proposal sent by respondent No.7-institution for change of trade of petitioner from Mechanic Radio and Television (MRTV) Trade to Workshop Science and Engineering Drawing has been rejected.

¶36

The petitioner possessed a Diploma qualification in Electronics and Communication Engineering (D & CE). He joined the service of respondent No.6 as a Junior Training Officer in Mechanic Radio and Television (MRTV) Trade by order dated 31.03.1998. The appointment of the petitioner was approved by the authority. Thereafter, respondent No.7 passed an order on 17.08.2016 at Annexure-C, reallocating the services of the petitioner to Workshop Science and Engineering Drawing and sent the proposal vide Annexure-D dated 29.08.2016 to respondent No.2 for approval. The same was rejected by the

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:21689 WP No. 14735 of 2023

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

authority by the impugned order dated 23.05.2023 at Annexure-K. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶40

Sri. Subramanya Bhat .M, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the proposal sent by respondent No.7-institution for change of trade in respect of the petitioner has been rejected only on the ground that there is no provision under the Grant-In-Aid Code, 1997. But in respect of similarly situated persons, i.e., one Sri M.S. Ramesh and Sri M.K. Venkatesh, the permission was accorded by respondent No.2 for change of trade. Denying the same benefit to the petitioner is in violation of right granted to the petitioner under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Hence, he sought to allow the writ petition.

¶41

Learned Government Advocate for the State has

¶42

contended that under the Grant-In-Aid Code 1997, there is no provision for granting a permission for change of trade.

¶43

5 -

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:21689 WP No. 14735 of 2023

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

Therefore, the proposal sent by respondent No.7 has been rightly rejected by respondent No.2.

¶47

Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the writ papers.

¶48

The petitioner was appointed as a Junior

¶49

Training Officer in the Mechanic Radio and Television (MRTV) trade. Since the said department was cancelled, the management-respondent No.7 sent the proposal seeking approval for reallocation of the services of the petitioner to Workshop Science and Engineering Drawing Trade to respondent No.2. The proposal sent by respondent No.7 has been rejected by the impugned order dated 23.05.2023 at Annexure-K on the ground that there is no provision under the Grant-In-Aid Code, 1997 for change of trade.

¶50

The specific contention taken by the petitioner in the writ petition is that similarly situated persons, i.e., in respect of one M.S. Ramesh, permission was granted to

¶51

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:21689 WP No. 14735 of 2023

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

change of trades from Mechanic Radio and Television (MRTV) trade to Workshop Science and Engineering Drawing Trade and to that effect, petitioner produced the order passed by respondent No.2-Commissioner vide Annexure-H dated 08.06.2016. In respect of Sri M.K. Venkatesh, the permission was granted to change the trade from the post of Mechanic Radio and Television (MRTV) trade to Electronic Mechanical trade by order dated 09.08.2018 produced as Annexure-H1. In the statement of objections filed by the State, respondents have not denied Annexures-H and H1, though the petitioner is also seeking similar relief and no reason is forthcoming for denying the same benefit in the impugned order at Annexure-K. Hence, the impugned order is violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India. On the short ground, the writ petition needs to be allowed. The impugned order at Annexure-K dated 23.05.2023 is set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law, keeping in view

¶54

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:21689 WP No. 14735 of 2023

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

the orders dated 08.06.2016 and 09.08.2018 at Annexures-H and H1 respectively passed by respondent No.2, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶57

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

¶58

MBM

¶59

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51

Nagaraja. S. v. Vs State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagaraja. S. v. Vs State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt H S Geetha Vs Smt Chandhrakala W/O Rajashekarappa

Sri Tony Serrao Vs Sri Madhushudhan

R Shivappa Vs K a Shivaswamy

Suresh K Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Manjunath C S Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr. Srinivasa Gowda N Vs Home Secretary