Suresha vs Karnataka Milk Federation on 2 February, 2011

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Suresha vs Karnataka Milk Federation on 2 February, 2011

Bench: Mohan Shantanagoudar

IN THE HEGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS we 2% DA'? 0? FEBRUARV, 

BEFORE

THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE Mowixi sig4A%i§if'Ai~isAeou.:;»Aé..,4:if

wan" PETITION i\so,54%31/iziaiio rks-:=:E:;§%iik%%
BETWEEN:  A' 1' 

Suresha

S/0 Bhoja Poojary V
Age 34 years  V 
R/a Doddamane"««T.._j'~  3; 
Shivapura ¥?es't4arij¢i__-Viiiag_e _
Karkala Taiizk   .   

Udupi l;)_i5_triC't:5'7'{§::_1V12_, *  *   "Petitioner

(By  AshiVkéé~.E;-,_S.i fé'i<_:;P;v----__Kar7unakar, Advs.,)

AND:

 1. V,is;iamataka"M1V%ii§"Fedieration

 .i._B':ar;_Ag.Aai.:.nf_e, By.' sts--~_Secreta ry.

     Kannada Milk

. " .i?roVdLi'_ce_rs.VvU'hion 5...td.,
'  Kuias;.h'e"kja'ra, Mangaiore.
"By its Managing Director
Charidrashekara Nayak. ..Respondents

B. Sudhakar, for M.R.C. Ravi, Advsi, for R1; TM'/5'. Kumar S: Kumar, Adv., for C/R2) fix) This writ peiﬂion is £'iiee:'i ¥_,'aI]dE'.I" A1'i.i.c1.es 226 and 22? of the Coristittition. of India, praying io quash the riotificaiiorz daieci 23.1.2010 pi,3bi'ished in Udeiyavaitii Manipai E3di.tié:>3fi'i;3 so fax' as item r1o.1O is Coricemed Vicie A1'111exure~A. . -V This writ petition coming on for iureiimineixjgi i'1etu7i.ﬁ.g--i ' 'B' group, this day iihe Court made the foiiowir_1g:.a_ __ 0RDERii"

Petitioner has sou.gih_t notification at Annexi,ire--A, issued by the second by which, applications avre_:'ii1__\'/iteti' appiicants to fill up vai.;.ii'o'o..g of Computer Operator;..., the petitioner was appouwed as g Coniputét<DperaUM'on 11.12.2003 by . I of I the seeorid "respondent-

Aitin~i.onA; ii'o.n1tract basis. Petitioner was offered _ coh'soiici'ateiA:i'Apay of "€3,800/--*. when the petitioner wotking so, the impugned Notification at ~' i3¢--niiéi<ure~A is issued, caiiing for appiications to fill up 3%":

51.} various pests, including two posts mf Computer Operators.

3. El: is argued on behalf of the instead of filling up the posts through,ujjsei:e:§ti_onK' process, the petitioners services s-hexiiiidisa.ltav-e""b'ee;a;vs.' regtiiarised in the very p0st<$G.._;3s tb-awawidiVh'atdvshiVp_:'3tb% the petitioner.

Writ petition is mi "t--h[ve:re;spondents on the ground th_a't__ the"""wVr'itV_"'itself is not maintaiinabief'§h~asV_r9htic'h:a.s_respondent i\io,2 is not the State witiaijhii tne n~.e¢;iiitilna of Article 12 of the Constittztion oF'§..n:d:ia;Q:that the petitioner also applied his application 'will be canlsidlered an merits'. V A .. This Court in the case of Jayadevappa K & vs. The State of Karnataka 8: others, in liz~*"E WP.No.21068/2004, disposed of on 23.2.2007, has concluded that the second respondent is not the "State" within the meaning of Articie 12 _o'fV_j:'-th'evv Constitution of India and that the aggrieved"§:§erSod"*-"ii' may raise a dispute under Sectiove~7£3.4of it Co--operative Societies Act (for referred to as the 'Ac:t'). orderr.hesu°a;tta'iried finality, If it is so, the:~;Qetit_i=o'n'e.§¥I's'h*ouAl.d have faised a dispute under the in stead of approaching ti: ~. V Apex Court in the case of The Seeder-eta-rV:y,g._ State" of Karnataka 8: others vs. 8;. _others;'_ _reported_in_ (_2006)4 _SCC_._1. __ _ _. _ ti?i.§ i;as:e"%:pf The State of Karnataka & others vs.' L,i:es;n?i & others, reported in (201 ms scc 'away not be appiicabie to the facts and , ('ire-mﬁstances of the case, inasmuch as the conditions .3z\ 3 /' x ,z/ .

laid down in the said judgments are not folfiiied by the petitioner. As aforementioned, the petitionVer.._:'i~i.s working on ed~hoc basis w,e.f. December, However, placing reliance upon the .f3overn'n*1'eiii:'Order-_ dated 28.5.2010 at Annexuree-.ari.;;i issued by the Bangalore City;'''~RuraV'i,gandlfRa'nfi'ana'oer '' V Districts Co--operativ.e'~.__lf/iiil§Al"P'roIofu¢'ers' 'tJ'ri'ioh"s, it is argued on behalf of respondent No.2 shouid3._'»hMl:éV W59tfgeriségii\':t*he...:V.§services of the petitioner to the petitioner at the itime of _ ,

6.V7The Gover_nn*'ie_n't...Crder, at Annexure-F, dated ll 2.8.5.,?.Q.1Q.i.a."pert;a.ii;.1_SAf'ut.C5"f':iVRa_i_Ch..U.l3_.B_€3_i_i_3fY_..6.i1Cl...KQPl??§_|___.... II I I I t . i°'Dis'triCts=Co.:opere't'i'$2e Miik Producers' Unions. Those iti*--llili.iod'sfT'fhveds".'-.:sought permissionfrom the State Go<J'<erns.;'n'en:'tAfor reguiarising the services of employees are on ad--hoc basis. Based on fact situation, of,"

State has permitted those Uniohs to regularise the employees who are on ad--hoc basis. The Notification at Anne><ure~»G, dated 12.11.2010, Bangalore City, Bangalore Rural and M Districts Co~operative Milk Proditkcers' r_Unioii.,y_"regyearis that the applications filed by_.t_he ad.--hoc en'ipio'yees'irf.o"rv"

being appointed afresh to 'r'e.g"uEar p0s'ts'V':wo{,ild be considered on preferentia«lVAd "such a Notification is not isso.ed.:'_'ey respondent. In view of'.yth_e §:Voi.ivrt'u:c'a'nnot direct the second, re_spxo'n.«:ietn;t.ytof-mou_id its policy and give preferen ce. th e». peti é"r;"

it. is open. _for_ the s.e__coh.d......... _ _ . consider the appiication filed by the isetgiiti-0'ne'r'A"i'i?'.rVslﬁdbointmenti in accordance with law. If 'Vsecorid.."":je'si3ondent so chooses, and in case if petitieneﬁs services are required, he may be given preference if the rules permit: 2" respondent to do 50. With the aforesaid observations, writ petivt;.i'c'3::r'i"e.é.s disposed of.

gage *Ck/Ilk-

Mmﬁmﬁiwrglmz 04.02.20 1 1 Writ petiton No.548 1 /2010(S--REg§§ ORDER ON "BEIRG SPOKEN TO' The matter is moved today for being spo§éte'n%t«c§"';~~.4 It is brought to the notice of the Court M counsel for respondent No.2 :t;hAat"~theé procese"--:ofVh"".

selection is already over andbp.t_here¥ore., the o;_r;:est'io;1=--4 of '' considering the application the for appointment on prefer-entiat not arise. The said sta_temen.t..vi's:--.reeo.;§jedH' made dear that if compieted, there ielno-. respondent to Consider the application"r«..file,dVr !3_ay4?'VA'._vt'i1.:'(:3"..'e'petitioner for appointment aaaaa

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court