Karnataka High Court
Smt.Sheelavantgeeta vs The State Of Karntaka And Anr on 28 February, 2017
Author: Rathnakala
Bench: Rathnakala
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RATHNAKALA
WRIT PETITION NO.202642/2016 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT.SHEELAVANTGEETA
W/O: SHIVAKUMAR SHEELVANT
AGE: 37 YEARS OCC: HOUSWIFE
PLOT NO.34, NGO LAYOUT
SHIVA NAGA NORTH, BIDAR-585401.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.GOURISH.S.KHASHAMPUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE SECRETARY
KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
UDYOGA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001
BENGALURU-560 073.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.ARCHANA.P.TIWARI, AGA FOR R1,
BY SRI.R.J.BHUSARE, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ORDER OR DIRECTION BY
DIRECTING THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR CONSIDERATION OF
REPRESENTATION DATED: 03.06.2016 AT ANNEXURE-G.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction of the 2nd respondent in not responding to the representation given by her at Annexure-G.
2. To put into a nutshell, the petitioner took exam conducted by 2nd respondent for the post of Gazzatted Probationers held during the year 2015.
3. Sri.Gourish.S.Khashampur, counsel for the petitioner submits that when applications were called for, there was no mention that answer script will be evaluated by digital mode. All of a sudden they disclosed that answer sheets are evaluated in digital mode which is an impossibly since the 3 nature of question paper required summary answers. Respondents have already declared the list of successful candidates and very soon they are calling for interview. Hence, she sought for clarification vide her representation at Annexure- G dated 03.06.2016 as to how the answer sheets were evaluated and requested for revaluation of her paper. But the respondents have not responded to her application.
4. Sri.R.J.Bhusare, learned counsel for 2nd respondent submits that her representation at Annexure-G will be considered in accordance with law without further delay.
In the light of above submission, petition is allowed. 2nd respondent is directed to consider the representation of petitioner at Annexure-G in accordance with law within one week from the date of receipt of this order and communicate to the petitioner through E-mail I.D. and also manually.
Sd/-
JUDGE KJJ