Writ petition challenging the interim suspension of conferring temporary status by the Tribunal. The Court dismissed the petition as misconceived, leaving it open for applicants to represent how they met eligibility categories.
Writ petition dismissed; interim order of 28.11.2014 vacated.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE SANJAY KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE M.GANGA RAO
WRI T PETI TI ON No.36349 of 2014
ORDER : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar)
This writ petition stands on par with W.P.No.9590 of 2013 which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 12.09.2018. Be it noted that the only direction granted by the Tribunal in the O.A., which was the cause for grievance in this writ petition, was to confer temporary status upon the applicants in the O.A. from the dates they became eligible for grant of such temporary status.
Sri M.V.Krishna Mohan, learned counsel for the respondentsapplicants, would bring it to the notice of the Court that there were three categories of employees who were entitled to be conferred temporary status - those who came under the ambit of the Circular issued by the authorities in the year 1993; those who were covered by the direction of the Supreme Court in SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA V/ s. UMADEVI1 in terms of having completed ten years of service by the date of the said judgment without the protection of any court orders; and those who came into service only after the year 1996 and did not come within the ambit of the second category. Learned counsel would further state that by virtue of the interim suspension granted by this Court, the entire process of conferring temporary status came to a grinding halt.
As observed in the order dated 12.09.2018 passed in W.P.No.9590 of 2013, we are at a loss to understand as to why the Union of India and its officials chose to file this writ petition when it was for them to act upon the directions of the Tribunal and grant relief only when the requirements
1 (2006) 4 SCC 1
2
were duly satisfied. The writ petition, in its very inception, was therefore utterly misconceived and is accordingly dismissed.
We leave it open to the respondents-applicants to make suitable representations to the authorities concerned citing as to how they would come within one of the aforestated three categories and how they would be entitled to conferment of temporary status. The authorities shall thereupon take appropriate action as directed by the Tribunal.
Interim order dated 28.11.2014 shall stand vacated. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand dismissed. No order as to costs.
SANJAY KUMAR,J
M. GANGA RAO, J
Date: 03.12.2018
IBL
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition was misconceived given the failure to follow Tribunal directions.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma DeviExplained¶5
SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA V/ s. UMADEVI
Union of India
Respondents-Applicants
Sanjay Kumar
M. Ganga Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
