Ashok Tammanna Kattimani S/O Tammanna vs Karnataka State Road Transport ... on 2 September, 2008

[Cites 2, Cited by 9]

Karnataka High Court

Ashok Tammanna Kattimani S/O Tammanna vs Karnataka State Road Transport ... on 2 September, 2008

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitutioaof India, praying to direct the respondent to consider the peﬁtioner as having passed a course equivalent to that of graduation and there by consider him for the post of Administrative Officer.

This petition coming era for preliminary hearing. t:hi:s:.da§f, the Court made the following: ._ _ .__ ' The petitioner claims be 2 the respondent corporation; anctixis services have been conﬁrmed as a perittﬁanetitiieinitiiogsiéfeeéin tl1eiiye'air 1994. In the year 1997, the petition_e'ri.is toriiaiieivcempleted a course called Raja Pre.vi1ia" is said to be to has been recognised by the State Gt;~§{ernrnest of _ _2. " _first'v.re'si3ondent is a State Government of undertaking and had invited applications for the filass H officers for various posts, in diﬁerent eategoriesiiiini the year 1999. The petitioner had made an application since he was qualiﬁed and had the requisite i i"._ieiq3erience to be appointed for several posts such as Assistant i 2 ii Controi Officer, Assistant Administrative Officer, @ .. 3 » Assistant Store Keeper, Security and Safety Officer and etc. The petiﬁoner was issued a common aptitude test adniission card pursuant to his application. The petitioner having the test bad man itifcnned, by a letter dated 22.33}19®,lisa;;a i had not been selected for the pest:appliedA_l;Eiy hi'sf'me1=iti i percentage was below the cut»-ioﬁ' percentage he prescribed qualifying examinati'oii"irnarksarid'-ei:pei*§ence. It is thereafter that the respondent seeking clariﬁcation submitted his objections, preperly consdiered his qualiﬁcation not being in accordance with complaint that the respondents have not It is the further case of, peaaossegtighatjhougn he had ﬁled his complaint, the . not choose to reply and inspite of his ii the year 2007, the respandents having failed T to respon_d,i the present writ petition is filed, it 3. On the petitioner's own admission, the cause of ii "action being of the year 1999, though the petitioner claims that he was in dire ﬁnancial ﬁcumsmces and that he could not ,4, 1' seek legal advice or approach the court earlier, would clearly disentitle the petitioner to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this court. As the present petition is barred by laches notwithstanding merit of the petitioner's case given theofacts and circumstances, there is no warrant for interference. court. However, on the fervent plea of for 2 petitioner to issue a direction to the=__resp0ndents' to"coIisiVder«.

case atleast, in future as he is application to the posts to invited applications on the presumed that the respondents that Raja Bhasha Pravina B.A.Degree, is a presu:;jiiiﬁtio':iiiit'ifivst The Counsei for the petitioner! to the respondents to consider his grguaiiﬁeetionias equivaient to B.A.Degree atleast in V future iciircuriastances.

goes without saying that the present Writ Petitii;n__ii3~is not considered on its merits, while the question iiii-.r'w.het'her Raja Bhasha Pravina is equivalent to B.A.Degree or i V. ,_ irot, remains unanswered while disposing of this Writ ?etition. é ,_g"-

Hence the qualiﬁcation or the percentage of marks or qualiﬁcation held by the petitioner is not considered in this writ petition. Hence if the respondents invite applications in future and the petitioner is held dis-qualified and in the event such application is rejected, thee it would be a fresh eans.e_i With these observations, the petition is 7_fj3ﬁdg§%ﬁx"n

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court