Dr Mervin A Herbert vs Union Of India on 9 November, 2020

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Dr Mervin A Herbert vs Union Of India on 9 November, 2020

Bench: S.G.Pandit

                          1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020

                       BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

       WRIT PETITION.NO.4318 OF 2017 (S-RES)

BETWEEN:

DR. MERVIN A. HERBERT,
S/O C.F.HERBERT,
AGED 53 YEARS,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR,
DEPT. OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING,
NITK, SURATKAL-575025.
                                      ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. M.NARAYANA BHAT, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     UNION OF INDIA,
       REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
       MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES
       & DEVELOPMENT,
       (HIGHER EDUCATION),
       SHASTRI BHAVAN,
       DR. RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD,
       NEW DELHI - 110001.

2.     THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF
       TECHNOLOGY KARNATAKA,
       SRINIVASA NAGAR, SURATKAL-575025,
       MANGALORE, DAKSHINA KANNADA
       REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR.
                        2



3.   THE DIRECTOR,
     THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF
     TECHNOLOGY KARNATAKA,
     SRINIVASA NAGAR,
     SURATKAL-575025,
     MANGALORE, DAKSHINA KANNADA

4.   THE CHAIRMAN,
     NITK AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,
     IBM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,
     EMBASSY GOLF LINKS BUSINESS PARK,
     BLOCK-A, OFF INDIRANAGAR,
     KORAMANGALA INTERMEDIATE RING ROAD,
     BENGALURU-560071.
                                  ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. JAYANT DEV KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2
 ASG FOR R1; R3 IS SERVED)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR
THE RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE PETITIONER; QUASH
THE RECRUITMENT NOTIFICATION DATED 6.1.2017 VIDE
ANNEXURE-C AND DATED 17.6.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-H
AS THE SAME IS ILLEGAL AND OPPOSED TO THE STATUES
AND VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 14, 16 AND 21 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ETC.


     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THROUGH VIDEO
CONFERENCE, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                              3



                          ORDER

Sri. Narayana Bhat.M, learned counsel for the petitioner appears through video conference and submits that he may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to challenge the selection.

2. On the other hand, the learned counsel Sri. Jayant Dev Kumar appearing for respondent No.2 has no objection for the withdrawal of the writ petition but has objection with regard to prayer of the petitioner seeking liberty to challenge the selection.

3. In the writ petition, the petitioner had prayed for quashing the recruitment notification bearing No.Advt./Faculty-NITK/Estt./2017/B1 dated 06.01.2017 and letter bearing No.F.No.33-3/2014- TS.III dated 17.06.2015, Annexure-C and Annexure-H respectively.

4. In pursuance to the recruitment notification, if the selection process is complete and appointments are made, it is open to challenge the selection and appointment of the selected candidates by the aggrieved person or by the non-selectee. In that view of the matter, I don't see any unreasonableness in the prayer of the petitioner. It is always open for the petitioner to challenge the selection and appointment in accordance with law. Therefore, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the writ petition with liberty as sought in accordance with law.

Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the above liberty.

Sd/-

JUDGE SMJ

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court