Karnataka High Court
Smt. Jaya Narayan Madival vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 September, 2011
Author: B.V.Nagarathna
Bench: B.V.Nagarathna
-4- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD. | DATED THIS THE 1274 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 20%.4+ - BEFORE So THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE.B.V.NAG ARATHN, A , W.P.NO.65879/2011 (S s-RES) Between: Smt. Java Narayan Madival W/order Narayan Madival,. Aged about 37 years, Occ: Main Cook and House wife R/order Harodi, Valagalli Village, Kumta Taluk, U.K. District. res Z . Petitioner (By Sri.S.G-Kadadakati:- Sri, Ganapati S. Shastri, Lingesh V. Kattimani.M.By Gondi, Adv ocates) And: |. The State of Karnataka ~ "By its Se erelary, ~ Rural Devel lODr rent and Pans thay ath Rai, . M.S Bi ui ilding, : * _Commissianer, ; public instruc tion Department, . Nrapat tt uinga Road, J. 3o-Executive Officer, 'Taluk Panchayath, Kumta, U.K.District. ... Respondents
(By Smt. Megha Kolekar, HCGP.,) A iL This petition is filed under articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India praying to quash the circular _dated 09.06.2011 issued by the respondent No.2 (Annexure-€)' SO far it relates to petitioner etc., ee ; This petition coming on for Preliminary... Hearings. this. day, the court made the following: 0. ORDER | Though this writ petition ~is. posted for. Preliminary Hearing, with the consent ef counsélon both sides it is heard finally.
2. In this wrt petition, the petitioner has assailed circular dated 9:9.2011 issued by respondent No.2 insofar as it relates to'the petitionér, »
3. The petitioner is-.a resident of Harodi, Valagalli Gram Panchayath in Kumia Taluk. She was appointed as a main ¢0ok in lower. primary school of Harodi for the year 2011-2012 under-"Akshara Dasoha Scheme' by resolution SS ry Panchayath since 17.5.2010. Respondent No.2 has issued a " eircular dated 9.6.2011 statine that if a person is elected as a 7 . a 'Panche vat Member and is also serving under the 'Akshara a ame o we Dasoha Scheme' then such a person has to be removed from duties under the said scheme. The petitioner apprehe nds 'the ursuant to the circular dated 9.6.2011 she may be.remic {Ny ed from her service as a cook under the said scheme... Pherefore, the circular is challenged.
4. | have heard the learned counsei-for the petitioner and learned counsel for the resporident. and perused the material on record.
3. It is. naticed that 'theugh circ 1 ular 9.6.2011 has been issued. by Tespondent No.2;-there is no direct threat to the service of the petitioner ia as much as, there has been no action initiated pursuant. to.the said circular in so far as the petitioner: is concerned... Iri the event the said circular is to be impemented, "then the respondent authorities would have to ' + issue aotice tu the petitioner and Pos alter seeking her reply a _ decision has. to be taken in terms of the circular dated °9.6.2911>Since the same has not been done in the instant "case, the challenge made to the circular dated 9.6.2011 in my . VS "
_4-
6. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondents stated that the object of the circular is to ensure ne per 0} who is holding of office of profit could furietion aga"
representative and therefore it is in that context that 'circular has been issued and the petitioner cannot have any grievance against the same. However, since ne. action has "been" initiated against the petitioner inthis writ petition; it would not be necessary at this stage to '20 into'.the validity to the circular dated 9.6.2011, "Theretore, reserving liberty to the petitioner to challenge. the. said 'cireular at an appropriate point of tiniey it is observed "that ir pursuant to the circular dated 9.6.2011, the respondent authorities intend to initiate any action against thé. pétitisner then in that case principles of patural justice shall'be followed. ~.With the.above observation, the writ petition is disposed CoS i oes oS bs