Sri K M Basavaraju vs The Government Of India on 15 June, 2012

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri K M Basavaraju vs The Government Of India on 15 June, 2012

Bench: H.N. Nagamohan Das

                         1




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

        DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF JUNE, 2012

                      BEFORE

 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.N. NAGAMOHAN DAS

                W.P.No.47283/2011(S-REG)

 BETWEEN:

 SRI K.M.BASAVARAJU
 S/O SRI MALLESHACHAR
 AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
 WORKING AS ASSISTANT
 NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF
 TECHNICAL TEACHERS TRAINING
 AND RESEARCH (FORMERLY TTTI)
 (SOUTHERN REGION) EXTENSION CENTRE
 S.J.(GOVT.) POLYTECHNIC CAMPUS
 SHESHADRI ROAD
 BANGALORE-560001.           .. PETITIONER

 ( BY SRI K.HIRIYANNA, ADV.)

 AND:

 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
 MINISTRY OF HUMAN & RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
                         2




DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY AND HIGHER
EDUCATION, C WING, SHASTRI BHAWAN
NEW DELHI-110001
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

2. THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNICAL
TEACHERS TRAINING & RESEARCH
TARMANI, CHENNAI-600113

3. THE SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNICAL TEACHERS
TRAINING & RESEARCH
TARMANI, CHENNAI-600 113.

4. THE PROFESSOR & HEAD
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF
TECHNICAL TEACHERS TRAINING
AND RESEARCH (FORMERLY TTTI)
(SOUTHERN REGION) EXTENSION CENTRE
S.J.(GOVT.) POLYTECHNIC CAMPUS
SHESHADRI ROAD
BANGALORE-560001.
                       ..  RESPONDENTS

    THIS WRIT PETITION FILED U/A 226 & 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH
THE ORDER DT.8.11.11, VIDE ANNEXURE-Q AND ETC.

     This petition coming on for preliminary hearing 'B'
group, this day, the court made the following;
                            3




                           ORDER

Fourth respondent institute at Bangalore is an extension centre of second respondent institute at Chennai. Petitioner is working as NMR Assistant in the extension centre at Bangalore from the year 1999. Now under the impugned order at Annexure-Q dated 8.11.2011, the third respondent Administrative Officer of the second respondent institute directed to discontinue and remove the petitioner from service. Hence this writ petition.

2. Despite service of notice respondents remained unrepresented.

3. It is not in dispute that petitioner is working as NMR Assistant in the fourth respondent extension centre from the year 1999 without any break. Without notice, 4 without enquiry and without following the procedure now respondents are contemplating to discontinue the petitioner from service under the impugned order and as such the same is bad in law. Further the impugned order specifies that petitioner is to be discontinued only to engage another person in his place. Again this approach of the respondents is bad in law. For the reasons stated above, the following:

ORDER I) Writ petition is hereby allowed. II) The impugned order at Annexure-Q dated 8.11.2011 is hereby quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE.

DKB

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court