Shri Sharanappa Vs the State of Karnataka

SHRI SHARANAPPA S/O SHRI VITHAL AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT NO.57, 4^TH CROSS, KAVERI LAYOUT, MAILASANDRA BENGALURU SOUTH BENGALURU-560100. (BY SRI. GOUTHAM M., ADV.)

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001 REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY.

¶14

THE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER MEDICAL EDUCATION GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA 6^TH FLOOR, 4^TH GATE M S BUILDING BENGALURU-560001 REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶15

KIDWAI MEMORIAL INSTITUTE OF ONCOLOGY DR. M H MARIGOWDA ROAD BENGALURU-560029 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI.PIYUSH KUMAR JAIN D., ADV. FOR R3 SRI SHIVAPRABHU HIREMATH, AGA FOR R1 & R2)

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4777 WP No. 7512 of 2024

¶19

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE R1, 2 AND 3 TO TAKE NECESSARY STEPS AND ACTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW WITH RESPECT TO (ANNEXURE-N) DATED 18.01.2023.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The petitioner, an employee of the third respondentKidwai Memorial Institute of Oncology (for short, ‘Institute’) is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of mandamus directing the third respondent to take necessary steps and action in accordance with law to consider Annexure-N representation dated 18.01.2023 and pass orders.

¶24

Heard learned counsel Sri.Goutham.M., for petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.Shivaprabhu Hiermath for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned counsel Sri.Piyush Kumar Jain.D., for respondent

¶25

No.3. Peruse the writ petition papers.

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4777 WP No. 7512 of 2024

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

¶28

that the petitioner is working as Ward Attender in the third respondent – Institute and he was appointed as such under O.M., dated 09.06.2000 (Annexure-A). It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that his appointment letter indicate his name as ‘Sharanappa .V. Hosamani’. It is submitted that ‘Hosamani’ is the surname of the petitioner and he got his name changed to ‘Sharanappa’. On changing his name to ‘Sharanappa’, he made a representation as at Annexure-N dated 18.01.2023 to the third respondent requesting to change his name in the service records. It is his grievance that third respondent has not taken any action on the said representation, hence, he prays for a direction to the respondents to consider his representation and pass appropriate orders.

¶29

On the other hand, learned counsel Sri.Piyush Kumar Jain.D., submits that the petitioner shall have to make proper application and in the absence of proper

¶30

4 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:4777 WP No. 7512 of 2024

¶32

application, the respondents are not obliged to consider the request of the petitioner.

¶33

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for

¶34

the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, I am of the view that the petitioner would be entitled for a writ of mandamus directing the third respondent to consider the representation dated 18.01.2023 (Annexure-N).

¶35

A perusal of Annexure-N dated 18.01.2023

¶36

discloses that the petitioner had made a request to the third respondent to change his name in the service records

¶37

as ‘Sharanappa’ in place of ‘Sharanappa V. Hosamani’ enclosing the documents. The respondent No.3 is legally obliged to consider the representation in accordance with law by considering the representation itself as an application. Hence, the following:

¶38

ORDER

¶39

a) The respondent No.3 is directed to

¶40

consider the representation/application dated 18.01.2023 (Annexure-N) of the

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:4777 WP No. 7512 of 2024

¶42