Karnataka High Court
Sri Nayana Kumar vs State Of Karnataka on 10 September, 2020
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO.30360 OF 2014(S-RES)
BETWEEN
SRI NAYANA KUMAR
S/O.SRI P.SRINIVASA ACHARYA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
OCC:SELECTION GRADE LECTURER,
MECHANICAL DEPARTMENT,
N.R.A.M. POLYTECHNIC (AIDED), NITTE,
R/AT 'GURUKRIPA',
KUKKUJE POST,
KARKALA TALUK-574108,
UDUPI DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRASHANTH KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
(HIGHER EDUCATION), VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE-560 001,
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT.
2. DIRECTORATE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT TECHNICAL EDUCATION,
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR,
PALACE ROAD,
BANGALOE-560 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.
3. THE NITTE EDUCATION TRUST (REGD.)
NITHYANANDANAGAR, MANGALORE,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT,
PIN-575 018,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.
2
4. NITTE RUKMINI ADYANTHAYA
MEMORIAL POLYTECHNIC (AIDED),
A UNIT OF NITTE EDUCATION TRUST (REGD.),
NITTE, KARKALA TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT PIN:574 110,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI C N MAHADESHWARAN, AGA FOR R1 & R2
SRI ARAVIND V CHAVAN, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4 )
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL
FOR RECORDS AND DIRECT THE R-2 & R-3 TO CONSIDER
THE REPRESENTATIONS DTD 05.06.2013 AND 10.07.2013
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AS PER ANNEXURE-X & Y
RESPECTIVELY AND PASS NECESSARY ORDERS GRANTING
THE SELECTION GRADE HIGHER PAY SCALE (PAY BAND 4)
W.E.F 30.12.2012 TO THE PETITIONER WITH ALL
CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo dated 10.09.2020 in this Court. It is stated in the memo that during the pendency of the writ petition, respondent No.3 has terminated the services of the petitioner on 09.06.2015. The same is challenged before the Principal District Judge, Mangalore in EAT No.1/2015. Since the prayer in the petition becomes academic in view of the 3 subsequent development, it is prayed that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to revive the same or file a fresh petition in case of reinstatement.
2. The memo is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.
3. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn granting liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition if the petitioner is reinstated.
Sd/-
JUDGE KLY/