Karnataka High Court
Krishna Grameena Bank vs Shivamma W/O Laxmikanth on 16 December, 2010
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, B.Manohar
5
respondent did net meet (she said require:§;;:fet:ted.{:' §}e}_e'ssVd
the reepondent get registered iegedlg ' Exchange and such ethera agencies ae»"V'eer§tem§1d'ted'e. under Rule 10 of the reepefidvenefgeouid not have sought for égpellerd:-Bank nor she was sponsgered by Further in View of the law Supreme Court, reportééfi g (§EfeRETARY, STATE OF g'ddTHERs V/S. UMADEVI AND OTHERS)} ~ employees cannot be reg'_id1Iarised,V"h_e:f1ceisought for dismissal of the writ . 'petitieng.
Single Judge after considering the af:'g:;Ir§e.1{1ié§; addreesed by the parties, relying upon the judgreent of H0n'b1e Supreme Court in UMADEVYS case 'A"'§:'efed1rred te above and also the judgment reported in 'V "STATE 0? KARANATAKA AND OTHERS V/'1-35 sheuid further ensure that regular reeruitiments are undertaken te fill vacant sanetiened pests that require;""te.[§e::
filled up, in cases where the 'M employees or daily wagers" ere employed. The preeessvi":.Arr::is~!ii' motion Within six momhs frhdmhihis The learned Single Judge f:x.riher"..Qbser*Jed,. that in the instant case, the ree'pen.d'enviJ'ShiVéLni;§n3.a worked as a Sweeper and more than 28 373313» "'it1f1'3;4t.. thiiqéiourts. In View of the judgmieingh fiS'upren1e Court referred to abovehthe issued directions to the appe11antu§Be;r1k 'tohgfegfilarise the services of the x' " ..... .. y 4.7 ""The.e}§g,e:eI1ant*Bank being aggrieved by the order vu=.__",passed; E:y the learned Single Judge preferred this m"
A
11. The learned Sing1eV.2}'.;;dgé '::f}I1side1"fih:g f:he':;e1;:::1fi;§.
naatter had rightly issued'fjhelvfgappeliantk Bank to regularise resfiofldent. We find that there is nQ..erf§§r the said order. In View of to any relief in xgre pas the following:
Thg \2vtitVV:ap"p{é2:1 f:;. (iismissed.