Anjaneya A.B. vs The Registrar General on 10 April, 2013

[Cites 2, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Anjaneya A.B. vs The Registrar General on 10 April, 2013

Bench: D.V. Shylendra Kumar

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

         DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2013

                           BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.V. SHYLENDRA KUMAR

             Writ Petition No.15833 of 2013 (S-RES)

BETWEEN:

ANJANEYA A.B.
S/O R BYRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
OCC: ADVOCATE
R/AT NO. 11, S-24
2ND FLOOR, VMC COMPLEX,
10TH CROSS, CUBBONPET
BANGALORE - 560 002                        ...   PETITIONER

            [By Smt Akkamahadevi Hiremath, Adv.]

AND:

1.     THE REGISTRAR GENERAL
       HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
       HIGH COURT BUILDING
       BANGALORE - 560 001

2.     THE SECRETARY
       CIVIL JUDGES RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE
       HIGH COURT BUILDING
       AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
       BANGALORE - 560 001            ...          RESPONDENTS

             [By Sri Raghavendra G Gayatri, AGA]

     THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 21.03.2013 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE
ANNEXURE - D AND ETC.,
                             2
    THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

                        ORDER

This writ petition is by a practicing Advocate being aggrieved that he has now been apprised that due to belated payment of fee for the final examination, he is deprived of an opportunity, and therefore, has come up before this court seeking for quashing the impugned endorsement Annexure D dated 21.3.2013 and consequential mandamus to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to appear for the final examination of Civil Judges scheduled to be conducted on 13th and 14th of April 2013.

2. Notice had been issued to the respondents and are represented by Mr. Raghavendra G Gayatri, learned AGA, who submits that the dates of examination had been duly notified and the procedure is being applied uniformly; that there were 21 similarly situated persons and that all these 3 persons have been denied permission to appear for final examination.

3. Appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, Smt. Akkamahadevi Hiremath, learned counsel, has put forth several contentions; that the petitioner did not come to know the result of the preliminary examination etc; that the fees was remitted immediately on the very next date of the last date fixed for payment of fees and this is a fit case where the delay of one day should be condoned etc.

4. When the dates are stipulated and notified, it is necessary that an authority has to adhere to it, without making any relaxation in the selection process. Just because the petitioner has approached this court, no premium can be placed on the person, who has approached the court for relaxation of the time schedule. No exception can be taken in the case of the petitioner for quashing the impugned order dated 21.3.2013 or 4 consequential mandamus, therefore, this writ petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE NG*

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court