Karnataka High Court
Shri Nagendra H S vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 February, 2014
Bench: S.Abdul Nazeer, H.S.Kempanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.ABDUL NAZEER
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S. KEMPANNA
WRIT PETITION NO.4036/2014 (S-KAT)
BETWEEN:-
SHRI. NAGENDRA H.S.,
S/O. SIDDA NAYAK
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
OF EXCISE, KUVEMPUNAGAR
MYSORE - 570 001.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.B.B.BAJENTRI, ADV.,)
AND:-
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE
DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
2ND FLOOR, TTMC(A) BLOCK
BMTC BUILDING, SHANTHINAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 027.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.M.S.PRATHIMA, HCGP)
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION NO.207/2014 DATED 8.1.2014
VIDE ANN-A AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION NO.207/2014
AS PRAYED FOR.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMIANRY
HEARING THIS DAY, S.ABDUL NAZEER J., MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petitioner is in the cadre of First Division Assistant in the office of the second respondent. The second respondent proposed to fill up the post of Inspector of Excise, which is higher cadre to that of F.D.A. under Rule 32 of the K.C.S.Rs'. By a Notification dated 10.12.2013, 16 F.D.As' proposed to be appointed to the post of Excise Inspector.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the reservation/roaster has been ignored while proposing to appoint the aforesaid 16 F.D.As' to the post of Excise Inspector. Therefore, the petitioner filed a representation as per Annexure-C dated 04.01.2014 to follow the reservation while filling up the post of 3 Inspector of Excise under Rule 32 of the KCSRs. Since the said representation was not considered, the petitioner filed Application No.207/2014 to issue of writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to adopt reservation in promotion policy to fill up the post of Inspector of Excise even for appointing under Rule 32 of the KCSRs' and further direct the second respondent to consider the name of the petitioner since he is one of Scheduled Tribe F.D.A. with reference to his eligibility. The Tribunal by its order at Annexure-A dated 08.01.2014 has dismissed the application on the ground that the application is pre- mature and that he has not availed the alternative remedy.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on record.
4. It is clear from the materials on record the petitioner has made a representation as per 4 Annexure-C dated 04.01.2014 to follow roster while promoting to the post of Inspector of Excise. The second respondent has not considered his representation. It is well settled that a petition can be filed when the fundamental rights are sought to be threatened. One need not wait till the actual threat has over carried out. In the instant case, the contention of the petitioner is that the roster is not being followed by the second respondent. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the application of the petitioner could not have been rejected at the threshold. The second respondent is directed to consider the representation at Annexure-C dated 04.01.2014 in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The order of the Tribunal stands modified to that extent and the writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
5
5. Learned High Court Government Pleader is permitted to file memo of appearance on behalf of the respondents within 4 weeks from today. No. costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE SA*