Chandrama Bhimaraya Halli vs Karnataka Power Transmission on 17 July, 2012

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Chandrama Bhimaraya Halli vs Karnataka Power Transmission on 17 July, 2012

Bench: K.L. Manjunath

                          1

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

        DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2012

                       PRESENT

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.L. MANJUNATH

                         AND

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SURI APPA RAO

           WRIT APPEAL No.2380/2007 (S-RES)

BETWEEN:

1. Chandrama Bhimaraya Halli
   S/o Bhimaraya Halli, 20 years,

2. Rajakumar U Katakagond s/o
   Ummaji, 20 years,

  Both are R/o Hirerugi, Indi Tq.,
  Bijapur Dist.                 ..      APPELLANTS

       (By Advocate Sri.Vinod Prasad)

AND:

1. Karnataka Power Transmission
   Corporation Ltd., by its
   Managing Director,
   Office of the KPTCL,
   Cauvery Bhavan, Bangalore.

2. Karnataka Power Transmission
   Corporation Ltd., by its
   General Manager (Administration &
                                        2

     HRD), Office of the KPTCL,
     Cauvery Bhavan, Bangalore.                   ..     RESPONDENTS

        (By Advocate Sri.P.S.Dinesh Kumar)

                                      - - - - -

     This WA is filed under Sec.4 of The
Karnataka High Court Act to set aside the order
passed in WP No.11498/2007 dated 8.11.2007.

     This Appeal is coming on for final hearing
this day, APPA RAO J. delivered the following:


                           J U D G M E N T

This appeal is filed challenging the legality and correctness of the order dated 6.11.2007 in WP No.11498/2007 whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioners/appellants on the ground that it becomes infructuous reserving liberty to the appellants to redress their grievance before the competent authority if they are aggrieved.

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: 3

Respondents invited applications for the post of Fitters from the candidates who have completed ITI course. Appellants who are eligible for the post applied for the post, respondents fixed the interview on 12.6.2007 and sent call letters to the appellants later thereby appellants lost their opportunity to attend the interview. Respondents completed the process of selection and appointed Fitters. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants lost their opportunity as they have not received communication from the respondent in time. Therefore, respondents may be directed to hold interview afresh and complete the selection process of Fitters as per notification dated 15.2.2007. Learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the writ petition does not survive for consideration as the entire selection process has been completed in the year 2007, selection 4 list has been published and appointment orders have been issued to the eligible candidates and they have joined duties. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that even prior to the date of interview respondents dispatched call letters to the appellants and others through post and phonogram intimating them to appear for the test on 22.7.2007 and produced documents to prove that the names of the appellants were also found at Sl.Nos.134 & 135 in the list sent to the eligible candidates.

Counsel appearing for the respondents further submitted that in spite of receipt of phonogram, appellants failed to appear before the court for the interview. Therefore, learned single Judge was justified in rejecting the writ petition filed by the appellants.

3. In that view of the matter, we see no merits in the appeal and the appeal is therefore dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE.

Sd/-

JUDGE.

R/230712

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court