Karnataka High Court
Sri Lokesh K vs The Registrar on 2 March, 2017
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
Bench: A.N. Venugopala Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF MARCH, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO.11336/2013 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI LOKESH K.
S/O SANNAKADURAPPA
AGED ABOUR 43 YEARS
R/A C/O JAYARAM K
KRISHNA NIVAS, NEAR BARAGERAMMA TEMPLE
BURUJANAHATTY, CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
AND ALSO WORKING AS
ASST. PROFESSOR OF SEED SCIENCES & TENCHNOLOGY
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH STATION, BIDAR
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI MOHAMED SHAFIULLA, ADV. - ABSENT)
AND:
1. THE REGISTRAR
UNIVERSITY OF HORTICULTURAL SCIENCE
SECTOR NO.60, NAVANAGAR
BAGALKOT - 587 103
KARNATAKA.
2. THE REGISTRAR
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE RAICHUR
POST BOX NO.329
RAICHUR-584102
KARNATAKA.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI LAKSHMIPATHI D.G., ADV. FOR R1
SRI K.G. NAYAK, ADV. FOR R2)
2
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT BY WAY
OF MANDAMUS TO ISSUE NOC BY THE R-2 TO ATTEND THE
INTERVIEW ON 6.3.2013 AT R-1 INSTITUTION FOR THE POST
OF ASST. PROFESSOR OF SEED SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, IN
ALTERNATIVE FURTHER PASS AN ORDER THAT THE R-1 SHALL
INTERVIEW THE PETITIONER FOR THE SAID POST EVEN
WITHOUT NOC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner, Assistant Professor of Seed Soil Sciences & Technology at Agricultural Research Station, Bidar, filed this writ petition on 04.03.2013, asking for a mandamus as against respondent No.2, to issue NOC to attend the interview on 06.03.2013, in the Office of respondent No.1, for the post of 'Assistant Professor of Seed Science and Technology' or in the alternative to direct respondent No.1 to interview the petitioner without the NOC of respondent No.2.
2. On 04.03.2013, an ad interim order was passed and respondent No.1 was directed to permit the petitioner to attend the interview scheduled to be held on 3 06.03.2013, without insisting on production of NOC of respondent No.2 - employer of the petitioner.
3. Sri K.G. Nayak, learned advocate submitted that though the petitioner appeared in the interview conducted by respondent No.1 on 06.03.2013, he failed to qualify and thus was not selected.
4. There is no appearance for the petitioner. In view of the events which have taken place supra, the petition does not survive for consideration and stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE ca