Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Ashwin Kumar S/O Shankar Bhandari And ... vs Chief Secretary And Ors on 12 February, 2016

Bench: Aravind Kumar, B.Manohar

                        1




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

                KALABURAGI BENCH

     DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016

                    PRESENT

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR

                       AND

       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.MANOHAR

          W.A.NOs.200017-200021/2016
                        &
         W.A.Nos.200023-026/2016 (S-RES)


BETWEEN:

1.   ASHWIN KUMAR
     S/O SHANKAR BHANDARI
     AGE: 30 YEARS
     R/O CBI COLONY
     KALABURAGI-585 103

2.   MAHESH S/O MARLINGAPPA
     AGE: 29 YEARS
     R/O SHAKTI NAGAR
     KALABURAGI-585 103

3.   BABU S/O GANGAYYA GUTTEDAR
     AGE: 29 YEARS,
     R/O BIDDAPUR COLONY
     KALABURAGI-585 103

4.   GIREESHA S/O KALLAPPA GOWDAR
     AGE: 30 YEARS,
                           2




     R/O VEERBHADRAYYA COLONY
     KALABURAGI-585 103

5.   RAJSHEKAR S/O ANNARAYA
     AGE: 31 YEARS,
     R/O JAPUR
     TQ. DIST: KALABURAGI

6.   REVANSIDDAPPA S/O CHANDRAM
     AGE: 30 YEARS,
     R/O JERTAGI
     TQ. JEWARGI
     DIST: KALABURAGI

7.   SHIVASHARAN S/O SIDRAM
     AGE: 30 YEARS,
     R/O SUNDAR NAGAR
     KALABURAGI- 585105

8.   SHARAT KUMAR S/O CHANDRAPPA
     AGE: 31 YEARS,
     R/O KRISHNA NAGAR,
     BEHAND UNIVERSITY KALABURAGI-585 106

9.   SIDHARAM S/O RAJSHEKHAR
     AGE: 29 YEARS,
     R/O PALA
     TQ & DIST: KALABURAGI-585 228

                                      ...APPELLANTS

(BY SMT SHARADA R. PATIL, ADVOCATE)


AND:


1.   CHIEF SECRETARY
     GOVT. OF KARNATAKA
     M.S. BUILDING
                          3




     BENGALURU-560 001

2.   JOINT SECRETARY
     HYDERABAD KARNATAKA
     SPECIAL CELL DPAR
     M.S. BUILDING
     BENGALURU-560 001

3.   INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
     NORTH EAST REGION
     KALABURAGI- 585 102

                                   ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI R.V. NADAGOUDA, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL)


     THESE APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF

THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET

ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN W.P.NOs.207534-547 &

207581-583/2015 DATED 06.01.2016 AND ALLOW THE

WRIT APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.


     THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

HEARING THIS DAY, ARAVIND KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE

FOLLOWING:
                            4




                       JUDGMENT

This intra Court appeal is directed against order passed in W.P.207534-547 and 207581-583/2015 dated 06.01.2016 whereunder writ petition filed by petitioners seeking for quashing of the notifications dated 29.06.2015 Annexure-J and Notification dated 08.10.2015 Annexure-K published by Inspector General of Police, North-East Region, Kalaburagi, Government of Karnataka contending interalia that Clause 13B of Karnataka Public Employment (Reservation in Appointment for Hyderabad-Karnataka Region) Order, 2013 (for short `Order-2013') enables the Governor to provide for age or any other relaxation in the condition of employment for local person in local employment and such age relaxation has not been extended in the impugned notification. Hence, it is contended that petitioners are deprived of employment on account of age relaxation not being extended to them. 5

2. Said writ petition came to be considered by the learned Single Judge and held that Governor having not issued an order providing for age or any other relaxation in the condition of employment for local person in local employment as set out in clause 13B of the `Order- 2013', petitioners cannot claim as a matter of right that it is hit by Article 371J of the Constitution of India or the conditions of `Order- 2013'.

3. Having heard Smt.Sharada R. Patil, learned counsel appearing for petitioners and Sri.R.V.Nadagouda, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondents, we are not persuaded to accept the contention canvassed by learned counsel for petitioners inasmuch as Article 371J(2) neither mandates for age relaxation nor clause 13B(a) of `Order- 2013' provides for such relaxation and notification having not been issued relaxing the age of applicants either exercising power under clause 13B(a) 6 of `Order-2013' or any other provision. Petitioners cannot be heard to contend they are entitled for such age relaxation or the Government should extend such relaxation. In that view of the matter, we do not find any error committed by the learned Single Judge in rejecting the petitions. Hence, appeals being devoid of merits they stand rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE Sd/-

JUDGE SBN