Smt Nandini N Vs the State of Karnataka

THE DIRECTOR OF PROSECUTIONS AND GOVERNMENT LITIGATIONS, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, 5^TH FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-9. AMENDED AS PER ORDER DATED 29.06.2012

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. NEELAKANTAPPA K. PUJAR, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 3;

¶17

SRI. RAGHAVENDRA G. GAYATHRI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:11994 WP No. 6285 of 2012

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 31.12.2010 IN GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.LAW.232.LAC 2010 ISSUED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-N AND ETC.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The petitioner has challenged the correctness of an order bearing No.LAW.232.LAC.2010 dated 31.12.2010 passed by the respondent No.1, by which she was discharged from the service during the probationary period under Rule 5(1)(b) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Probation) Rules, 1977 (for short, 'the Rules, 1977').

¶25

The petitioner contends that she was working as an Assistant Public Prosecutor in the Department of Prosecutions. While in service, she applied for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and was selected on 28.07.2004. She contends that the respondent No.2 extended the period of probation of the petitioner and thereafter, discharged her from service in terms of the impugned order. The petitioner is, therefore, before this Court challenging the said order of discharge on various grounds.

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11994 WP No. 6285 of 2012

¶27

When this petition was listed for preliminary hearing

¶28

in 'B' group, the learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that in view of the note under Rule 5 of the Rules,

¶29

1977, the petitioner could be reverted back to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor. Following this, the learned High Court Government Pleader submitted before the Court that if the petitioner gave a representation for her continuance as an Assistant Public Prosecutor, then the same may be considered in terms of the note under Rule 5 of the Rules, 1977 and also on par with an identical order dated 05.09.2003 issued in respect of one Mr. Krishnamurthy. Having regard to the said submissions, this Court passed an order on 10.07.2012 granting a week's time to the petitioner to give a representation to the respondents. The petitioner contends that following the above order, she filed a representation before the respondents on 16.07.2012.

¶30

When this petition was listed on 07.03.2025,

¶31

learned Additional Government Advocate was called upon to secure instructions about the status of the representation filed by the petitioner pursuant to the order of this Court dated 10.07.2012.

¶32

4 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:11994 WP No. 6285 of 2012

¶34

Today, when the petition was listed for final hearing, learned High Court Government Pleader has filed a memo along with few documents which disclose that the representation of the petitioner was considered on 13.06.2024 and an order was passed by the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department to the effect that no action was required to be taken on the representation of the petitioner and the same had to be closed. In that view of the matter, nothing survives for consideration in this writ petition.

¶35

Consequently, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to challenge the order passed by the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, dated 13.06.2024 in accordance with law. All contentions of the parties are kept open.

¶36

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶37

sma/List No.: 2 Sl No.: 0

Smt Nandini N v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Nandini N v. the 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

R.S. Gowda Vs the State of Karnataka

H. N. Meena Vs the Registrar and Administrative Officer

Sri Shaheer Patel Vs the Karnataka Public Service Commission

Jagadeesh R Vs the Managing Director

Sri S R Thulasiram Vs the Registrar General

Sri. K. J. Dharmappa Vs State of Karnataka