Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
S Jhansi Lakshmi vs Indian Council Of Agricultural ... on 20 December, 2024
1
O.A.No.170/00462/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00462/2023
Order Reserved on: 11.12.2024
Date of Order: 20.12.2024
CORAM:
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
Smt.S Jhansi Lakshmi
W/o late V Sridhar
Aged about 52 years
Working as Skilled Supporting Staff
National Institute of Animal Nutrition
& Physiology, Adugodi, Bangalore-560 030
......Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri.B.S.Venkatesh Kumar)
Vs.
1. Union of India represented by Secretary
Ministry of Agriculture
Krishi Bhavan
New Delhi - 110 001
2. The Director General
Indian Council of Agricultural Research
Krishi Bhavan
SHAINEY
SHAI VIJU
CAT
NEY Bangalore
2024.12.30
VIJU 16:07:59
+05'30'
2
O.A.No.170/00462/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
Dr.Rajendra Prasad Road
New Delhi - 110 001
3. The Director
Indian Institute of Animal Nutrition
& Physiology
Adugodi, Bangalore - 560 030 - Respondents
(By Advocates: Shri.B.A Chandrashekar for R2&3,
Shri.Vishnu Bhat for R1)
ORDER
PER: DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
This Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 claiming the following reliefs:
"(a) Call for records of the case from the respondents and on perusal
(b) Quash and set aside the impugned Note in F.No.NIANP2-6(13) Estt.2008-09/Vol.III/135 dated 01/2.9.2021 (Annexure A12) passed by third respondent
(c) Issue a consequent direction to the respondents to consider the case of the applicant and promote her to the post of Technician I as she fulfills all the eligibility conditions and there is a vacant post of Technician I
(d) Grant such other relief/s as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit to grant to the applicant in the circumstances of the case including an order as to SHAINEY SHAI VIJU CAT NEY Bangalore 2024.12.30 VIJU 16:07:59 +05'30' 3 O.A.No.170/00462/2023/CAT/BANGALORE costs of this application in the circumstances of the case in the interests of justice."
2. The aforementioned reliefs are claimed on the grounds as mentioned in paragraph 5.1 to 5.9 of the Original Application. The brief facts of the case, as narrated by the applicant in the O.A, are that after much contest, the applicant was appointed as Skilled Supporting Staff in the third respondent's office on compassionate grounds. However, her services were not utilized in the said post but she was directed to discharge duties relating to clerical cadre. When the post of Technician I became vacant in third respondent office, the applicant submitted representation praying that her case be considered for promotion. However, an interim reply was sent stating that headquarters had issued directions not to fill any posts. Since the applicant was handling clerical duties for over seven years, she submitted another representation to promote her at least as Lower Division Clerk. That was also rejected by the respondents on the grounds that she has no prescribed qualifications. On 20.4.2020, headquarters issued directions permitting the offices under its control to fill up the live cadre posts. Thereafter, the applicant submitted further representations, but the third respondent issued the impugned reply dated 01/2.9.2021 vide Appendix A12 declining her request and SHAINEY SHAI VIJU CAT NEY Bangalore 2024.12.30 VIJU 16:07:59 +05'30' 4 O.A.No.170/00462/2023/CAT/BANGALORE further informed that no further communications will be entertained in regard to her promotion. The applicant has thereafter obtained information under RTI and a perusal of the same shows that she is fully eligible for promotion as Technician I. There is a vacancy available and the respondents have failed to consider her case. Therefore, the applicant has been constrained to prefer this O.A. Hence, based on the grounds agitated, the applicant requests to allow her Original Application and to grant her all the reliefs claimed.
3. On notice, the respondents have filed their reply statements and further the applicant has filed rejoinder.
4. The case came up for final hearing on 11.12.2024. Shri.B.S.Venkatesh Kumar for the applicant, Shri.B.A.Chandrashekar for respondent nos.2 and 3 and Shri.Vishnu Bhat for respondent nos.1 were present and heard.
5. We have carefully gone through the entire record and considered the rival contentions.
SHAINEY SHAI VIJU CAT NEY Bangalore 2024.12.30 VIJU 16:07:59 +05'30' 5 O.A.No.170/00462/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
6. The basic facts of the case are not disputed. That the applicant was appointed on compassionate grounds as Skilled Support Staff, and she had been discharging her duties related to clerical cadre as there was no work corresponding to her qualifications. In fact, what emerges is that her compassionate appointment was also delayed for some reasons. It is also not disputed that the applicant has a secondary school certificate of April 1987 and a National Trade Certificate in Electronics Mechanic dated 31.07.2017 (1992-1994). It is also not disputed that there is one Technician I post vacant in the respondent organization. The case of the applicant is that she was appointed as Skilled Support Staff on 20.07.2013. Hence, according to the applicant, she has adequate service and experience to be eligible to be promoted to the post of Technician-I.
7. The case of the respondents is that the certificates submitted by the applicant in respect of the I.T.I/National Trade Certificate is not relevant for promotion as a Technician (T-1) under the functional group of 'Laboratory Technician'. As the respondents are coming under ICAR which is governed by the Ministry of Agriculture under the Govt. of India, named as Indian Institute of Animal Nutrition and Physiology and doing very specialized SHAINEY SHAI VIJU CAT NEY Bangalore 2024.12.30 VIJU 16:07:59 +05'30' 6 O.A.No.170/00462/2023/CAT/BANGALORE laboratory oriented works. Hence, they only require trained Laboratory Technicians and the applicant's National Trade Certificate is not relevant for the purpose.
8. The respondents further say that there was no vacancy under the compassionate quota, hence the case of the applicant was initially not considered by the Institute and after litigation on the prompting from the Hon'ble Court, the Institute had given the appointment to the applicant under compassionate grounds quota in consultation with the ICAR and that itself was a big concession given to the applicant. And they further say that under O.M dated 30.4.2010 and 23.12.2013, the post of Skilled Support Staff has been re-designated as Multi-tasking Staff (MTS) under Group 'C' in Pay Band I Grade Pay of Rs.1800/-. The said post has broad duties (but it is made amply clear that those duties as mentioned in Annexure A-4, Duties of Skilled Supporting Staff are distinct and different from experience needed by a technical staff in the lab technician job) and, due to an acute shortage of staff in administration, she was assigned the work in the store section of the administration for a few months and the rest of the period in the despatch section. Hence, she has no experience or technical qualification for the post of Technician I (Lab Technician) which is SHAINEY SHAI VIJU CAT NEY Bangalore 2024.12.30 VIJU 16:07:59 +05'30' 7 O.A.No.170/00462/2023/CAT/BANGALORE vacant since 2017 and the Institute had forwarded the applicant's representation dated 17.9.2019 seeking promotion to the Council and a reply was received on 3.12.2019 informing, that the positions in the grade of Technician (T-I) in all ICAR Institutes, except in the functional group of "Fabrication Staff" stand abolished and for that the requirement is Agricultural Engineering and equivalent posts under "Fishing Vessel Crew" etc. They further emphasize that as per the Recruitment Rules for the appointment of Lower Division Clerk, the essential qualification is 10+2 and as per the educational credential submitted by the applicant, the certificate submitted towards ITI/National Trade Certificate is showing the vocational training certificate only and not a related course certificate as required for the promotion as Laboratory Technician. So she is neither eligible for promotion as LDC nor as Lab Technician, although the Institute has explored all possibilities by sending the proposals to the higher authorities. Further, the Institute had sent a letter to the ITI Department to get confirmation as to whether the particular ITI qualification is equivalent to the PUC/XII standard, and they got a circular dated 27.2.2018 issued from the Govt. of Karnataka on the subject that the equivalent courses for SSLC and PUC which is re- produced below:
SHAINEY SHAI VIJU CAT NEY Bangalore 2024.12.30 VIJU 16:07:59 +05'30' 8 O.A.No.170/00462/2023/CAT/BANGALORE " Three years Diploma or two years ITI course or two years ITI Diploma (JOC/JODC/JLDC) students should pass one language and one additional subject from National Institute of Open University through distance learning has to be clear which will be equal to 10+2".
9. The same has been informed to the applicant and the applicant has not submitted any document as referred above. Hence, the applicant's representation is still pending as she was not eligible.
10. The respondents mention that vide their circular dated 7.11.2003 (Annexure R-9) with a subject 'Promotion of Supporting Staff to Grade T-I of technical service under 33.3% quota reserved for departmental candidates' issued by the ICAR vide circular No.F.No.19-7/2000 Estt.IV given revised technical service rule details and modified essential qualifications are as follows:
" To The Directors of ICAR Institutes (By name) Sub: Promotion of Supporting Staff to Grade T-1 of technical service under 33.3% quota reserved for departinental candidates.
Sir, Revised Technical Service Rules provide for promotion of the supporting staff to grade T-1 of Technical Service under 33.3% quota reserved for departmental candidates. In this connection, attention is invited to Rule 7.1 of Technical Service Rules (Fourth Edition) which provides as under :
SHAINEY SHAI VIJU CAT NEY Bangalore 2024.12.30 VIJU 16:07:59 +05'30' 9 O.A.No.170/00462/2023/CAT/BANGALORE Rule 7.1 In accordance with the provisions of the notification dated 3 February, 2000, with the introduction of modifications in the Technical Service Rules, the 33.3% promotion quota will be operative only in category I at the level of T-1. It is clarified that promotion to grade T-1 under the Technical Service Rules are to be made on the basis of the selection (s).
Note - Alternative qualifications required for promotion (by selection) against the 33.3.% vacancies are contained in Council's letter No. 7(10) 178 Per. III dated 27 January, 1979 and 7(11)/83-Per III dated 22 August, 1984.
The Council's letter No 7-10/78 Per. III dated 27.1.1979 prescribes inter-alia qualifications for field/farm technicians including that of Cook, Lab Technicians and Workshop staff/ Engineering Workshop Staff (including "Boat Crew" as on I" January, 1977) in Category 1 and the same are reproduced below:
Field/Farm Technician Essential qualifications Category I Existing qualifications Amended Qualifications
(i) Matriculate with atleast (1) Matriculate with atleast one One year certificate in relevant field. year Certificate in relevant field OR OR Matriculate with five years experience Matriculate with 5 years of working in the respective field. experience of working in the respective field.
OR *Matriculate with National Trade Certificate National Apprenticeship Certificate or equivalent with 3 years' experience in the respective field.
OR * National Trade Certificate/National Apprenticeship Certificate (if Non- Matric) or equivalent with 5 years' experience of working in the respective field.
*(ii) For the post of 'Cook' a candidate should be 'literate and should have proficiency in cooking Desirable Qualifications SHAINEY SHAI VIJU CAT NEY Bangalore 2024.12.30 VIJU 16:07:59 +05'30' 10 O.A.No.170/00462/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
(i) Diploma in the relevant field. Diploma in the relevant field. For only existing employees holding positions in the Council on the 1" January, 1977.
Workshop staff including Engineering workshop Staff For Category I
(i) At least one year's Trade Certificate. (I) At least one year's Trade Certificate.
(ii) For "Boat Crews" a candidate should have "Good General Education and appropriate proficiency Certifiate. The Competency Certificate given by the Marine Mercantile Department will be preferred.
Desirable Qualifications
(i) Higher Certificate Diploma in the trade (1) Higher Certificate/Diploma in the Trade.
(ii) Two year's experience in the (ii) Two year's experience in the relevant relevant field field
The alternative qualifications with asterisk marks are applicable to the staff who have been insesice of ICAR as on 1.1.1977 and are not applicable to the employees who joined after 1.1.1977. The cases of promotion of Supporting Staff to technical grade T-I under 33.3% quota reserved for degaremental candidates may be dealt with accordingly. "
11. The respondents emphasized that the applicant must fulfill one of the conditions which are given as essential qualifications amended via the above mentioned document and referred rules. They vehemently assert that the applicant has not fulfilled any of the conditions which are given in the amended qualifications. The first condition was matriculate with at least one year certificate in a relevant field. The applicant is a matriculated, but she has no certificate in the relevant field of Lab Technician. Hence, this ground is not met. The second option was matriculate with 5 years' experience of working in the respective field. This is the nearest to SHAINEY SHAI VIJU CAT NEY Bangalore 2024.12.30 VIJU 16:07:59 +05'30' 11 O.A.No.170/00462/2023/CAT/BANGALORE which the applicant comes as she is a matriculated and, although she has experience of more than 5 years, not in the respective field of laboratory work. The next option is matriculate with a National Trade Certificate / National Apprenticeship certificate or equivalent with three years' experience in the respective field. The applicant is not qualified for this option also as her National Trade Certificate or experience is not in the respective field. Another option is a National Trade Certificate/National Apprenticeship certificate (if non-matric) or equivalent with 5 years' experience or working in the respective field. Again, the respective trade certificate and experience in the respective field is not possessed by the applicant. Hence, the applicant is not eligible.
12. The applicant has not denied the relevance of the above document dated 7.11.2003 (Annexure R-9) for her eligibility for promotion. In view of this document dated 7.11.2003, the main contention of the applicant is that from the very first day of her appointment, she had been inclined to work in the relevant field and that she was technically qualified as she had a trade certificate. But as the department did not entrust her work in the relevant field, she has no such experience. Because of the department's inability to assign SHAINEY SHAI VIJU CAT NEY Bangalore 2024.12.30 VIJU 16:07:59 +05'30' 12 O.A.No.170/00462/2023/CAT/BANGALORE her work in the relevant field, she is losing her promotion and the department should give her concession and relax rules and promote her.
13. Clearly, the applicant has failed to show under which provision of law and under which provision of rules, she is eligible for promotion. The Department took her on compassionate grounds appointment although they did not require a person with Electronic Mechanic National Trade Certificate, which she was trained in between August 92 and Jul 1994 for two years. They had given concession to her and took her on compassionate appointment. At this juncture, in the absence of rules, she cannot force her employer to go against the rules and to give her promotion as a Lab Technician in spite of her lack of experience and qualifications in the relevant field. When rules does not permit such promotion this Court has limited power of judicial review to intervene and direct the respondent department to relax the rules for her.
14. Let us examine the grounds mentioned in paragraph 5 of the Original Application, one by one.
SHAINEY SHAI VIJU CAT NEY Bangalore 2024.12.30 VIJU 16:07:59 +05'30' 13 O.A.No.170/00462/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
15. In paragraph 5.1, the applicant asserts that having been appointed as Skilled Supporting Staff she ought to have been entrusted with the work of the said post as per Annexure A4 Duties of Skilled Support Staff but the respondents for the reasons best known to them have not utilized her services in this field but orally directed her to work in the clerical cadre and as she was appointed on compassionate grounds she kept obeying the orders of her superiors but the same has resulted in coming in the way of her promotion. It is not her fault and if only she had been entrusted the work prescribed for the post earlier, she would have gained experience and would have got the promotion at the appropriate time Annexure A-4 is the duties of Skilled Supporting Staff, which is the same post as Multi-Tasking staff and is in no way the same as that of Lab Technician's post. All of this work, even if she was entrusted the work of that post, it is wrong to say that she would have gained experience of the Lab Technician. And, we can see that out of the same list of work, she was entrusted the work of physical maintenance of records and other similar work. Handling clerical duties was very much part of the duties of Skilled Supporting Staff as in Annexure A-4 document presented by the applicant herself. We do not find this ground to be of any valid ground. If the department needs SHAINEY SHAI VIJU CAT NEY Bangalore 2024.12.30 VIJU 16:07:59 +05'30' 14 O.A.No.170/00462/2023/CAT/BANGALORE specialized hands for the Lab Technician post, no one can force them to take a non-technical unexperienced person for that job. ICAR specialized institutions like the Indian Institute of Animal Nutrition and Physiology are unique and specialized research institutions of the Country, requiring specialized technical hands and, without proper credentials in terms of certificates and experience, one cannot claim such a promotional post by only telling and asserting that they have been working in the Department for a long time. As the department already may have avenues to deal with her stagnation like grant of ACP or MACP or any other provision which may apply to her, and she may seek benefit of such remedies based on her individual eligibility. But certainly, if she does not fulfill the eligibility conditions as laid down in the Department Circular dated 7.11.2003 in Annexure R-9 filed by the respondents, we are of the considered opinion that the applicant has in no way convinced us that she had any claim to promotion to such post. Hence, we reject this contention.
16. In paragraph 5.2, the applicant mentions that though initially the third respondent informed that the post of Technician I has been abolished as per Annexure A6 and reiterated that no further SHAINEY SHAI VIJU CAT NEY Bangalore 2024.12.30 VIJU 16:07:59 +05'30' 15 O.A.No.170/00462/2023/CAT/BANGALORE instructions have been regarding appointment of Technician As per Annexure A7, the headquarters by Annexure A8 dated 20.4.2020 (Annexure A8) have decided to fill up the live cadre' posts including that of Technician I. In that view of the matter the respondents ought to have considered the case of the applicant for promotion pursuant to letter Annexure A8.
Annexure A-8 is only a general proposal and merely because of that letter, no leniency can be shown to the applicant for a technical post like Technician I which has clear laid down eligibility criteria. And clearly, the applicant has not substantiated her case that she is eligible for such promotion. So, we do not find this contention as convincing. But Annexure A-8 we record that it further proves the bonafide of the department, that it has empathy with the applicant, and the authorities want to help her, but rules do not permit to make exception in her case.
17. In paragraph 5.3, the applicant states that by letter dated 30. 1.2021 Annexure A9 in reply to the representation of the applicant dated 11.12.2020 the respondent No.3 has informed that the position holds good as per the note dated 23.12.2019 totally ignoring the letter SHAINEY SHAI VIJU CAT NEY Bangalore 2024.12.30 VIJU 16:07:59 +05'30' 16 O.A.No.170/00462/2023/CAT/BANGALORE of the headquarters dated 20.4.2020. This is absolutely unjust, arbitrary and illegal.
In this paragraph it is not clarified that what is unjust, arbitrary and illegal. In a public job, whether it is new recruitment or promotion, everything is rule based if she has any doubt on any rule, that only she can put forth and everything else-become irrelevant. Earlier correspondence may not in any way justify her eligibility as per the prevailing eligibility criteria for promotion to a post of Technician-I Lab Technician post. Hence, this ground does not make sense.
18. In paragraph 5.4, the applicant mentions that the note dated 01/29 2021 denying the request of the applicant and stating that no further communication will be entertained in this regard is absolutely unjust, illegal and unsustainable. The denial of information sought by the applicant in para 4 of the said letter is also arbitrary, unjust and unsustainable. The applicant has only sought for information regarding the vacancies of T1 and nothing beyond and the respondents could not have withheld the said information as no official secrets are involved in this regard.
SHAINEY SHAI VIJU CAT NEY Bangalore 2024.12.30 VIJU 16:07:59 +05'30' 17 O.A.No.170/00462/2023/CAT/BANGALORE Before us, the details of Technician-I, as have been indicated and as it is a post of Lab Technician in a specialized organization like, Indian Institute of Animal Nutrition and Physiology, and the eligibility conditions are clearly laid down in the document dated 7.11.2003 in Annexure R-9, which is not disputed and the applicant has not been able to substantiate her case that she is fulfilling any of the alternate qualifications as prescribed therein. Hence, the grounds made out in this paragraph are not convincing.
19. In paragraph 5.5, the applicant mentions that the Headquarters have permitted filling up vacancies of Technician I through promotion by Skilled Supporting Staff superseding all earlier letter issued by it as can be seen from Annexure A13 Therefore, the respondents should have considered the case of the applicant and appointed her if found eligible Not having done so has resulted in substantial prejudice affecting her career progression But there has to be fulfilment of eligibility criteria as prescribed for the post of Lab Technician which the applicant is not fulfilling. Hence her case becomes untenable.
SHAINEY SHAI VIJU CAT NEY Bangalore 2024.12.30 VIJU 16:07:59 +05'30' 18 O.A.No.170/00462/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
20. In paragraph 5.6, the applicant submits that in order to defeat the case of the applicant the respondents have issued office order dated 29.1.2022 posting her to working as Skilled Supporting Staff to Animal Physiology Division with immediate effect. The respondent No.3 should have posted the applicant to work as Skilled Supporting Staff on her reporting to duty upon her appointment on compassionate grounds which would have made her eligible for promotion as Technician in 2018 itself.
Clearly, in this paragraph the applicant is admitting that her experience is not in the relevant field which required to be as an experience to be eligible for promotion as Lab Technician. And that she is posted in the Animal Physiology Division w.e.f 29.1.2022 only, so from that day onwards she may have required experience. For a technical scientific institution, technically qualified staff is essential and relaxing the experience conditions, may not be a sound decision to promote a person who is otherwise not eligible. Such relaxation will be counter productive to the cutting edge research work going on in such Institutions.
The Court also asked if there is any provision within their service rules of ICAR Institutions under the Ministry of Agriculture SHAINEY SHAI VIJU CAT NEY Bangalore 2024.12.30 VIJU 16:07:59 +05'30' 19 O.A.No.170/00462/2023/CAT/BANGALORE which give them inherent power to relax some of the provisions of the rules. The respondent counsel argued across the bar that such relaxation in experience conditions are improper as untrained staff in spite of contributing to cutting edge research which is happening in the institution may become impediment and hindrance to such research. They further argued that such relaxation in one institution may entail a large number of similar claims in other institutions. Hence, the Ministry of Agriculture or ICAR or the Indian Institute of Animal Nutrition and Physiology would in no case would like to relax such basic conditions to be fulfilled before appointment on promotion.
The applicant could not show a better reason to relax the said condition in her case. Applicant's is a case of compassionate appointment and already job has been given to her by relaxing rules, the rule of compassionate appointment itself is an exception to the constitutional scheme of public appointment through merit and selection. Coming from the backdoor, further asking for relaxation of technical rules, will severely compromise the expertise of highly specialized research institution like Indian Institute of Animal Nutrition and Physiology. In our considered opinion, this will not serve any public purpose and may compromise the cutting edge SHAINEY SHAI VIJU CAT NEY Bangalore 2024.12.30 VIJU 16:07:59 +05'30' 20 O.A.No.170/00462/2023/CAT/BANGALORE research of such an institution and, from any angle, it is not justified. Hence, the contentions in this paragraph are also rejected.
21. In paragraph 5.7, the applicant mentions that in reply dated 31.5.2022 to her application under RTI the applicant has furnished information in Annexures to the said reply. From the said annexures it can be seen that amended qualification for promotion to Technician I fully makes the applicant eligible for promotion to the said post and also that after the year 2020 the respondents have granted promotion to at least four persons but the case of the applicant has not been considered.
Mere consideration of cases of 4 other people who may have been otherwise eligibility, the applicant cannot buttress her own case where clearly she is not able to substantiate her eligibility conditions particularly experience criteria laid down in the relevant rules and circulars. Hence, this ground is not convincing and the same is rejected.
22. In paragraph 5.8, the applicant mentions that when the applicant submitted further representations the third respondent has refused to even accept the same by referring to note dated 01/2.9.2021 SHAINEY SHAI VIJU CAT NEY Bangalore 2024.12.30 VIJU 16:07:59 +05'30' 21 O.A.No.170/00462/2023/CAT/BANGALORE (Annexure A12). In that view of the matter the applicant has no other alternative than to approach this Hon'ble Tribunal.
It is not a ground, but merely a statement of facts and we are not convinced that the applicant has made out any case or ground for showing to her any further concession for promotion to highly technical post of Technician-I Lab Technician in a highly specialise ICAR institution.
23. In paragraph 5.9, the applicant mentions that the applicant is eligible for promotion to the post of Technician I and there is a post vacant in third respondent organization. Therefore, she is entitled for a direction at the hands of this Hon'ble Tribunal to consider her case for such promotion.
Merely because of the reason that there is a vacancy does not make someone eligible for promotion without fulfilling every eligibility criteria as laid down in Annexure R-9 document dated 7.11.2003. The applicant has not been able to substantiate under which of the alternative provisions, she qualifies. We are convinced that she is not qualified and eligible for such a promotion. Because of her stagnation, there can be recourse to ACP/MACP or any other available provisions if she is otherwise eligible, but in our considered SHAINEY SHAI VIJU CAT NEY Bangalore 2024.12.30 VIJU 16:07:59 +05'30' 22 O.A.No.170/00462/2023/CAT/BANGALORE opinion she has no case which has been substantiated before us for any promotion.
24. Considering the above discussions, we do not find any merit in the case of the applicant, and we pass the following orders.
25. The Original Application is dismissed. Accordingly, all other M. As, if any pending, are disposed of. No costs.
(DR. SANJIV KUMAR) (JUSTICE S. SUJATHA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/SV/
SHAINEY
SHAI VIJU
CAT
NEY Bangalore
2024.12.30
VIJU 16:07:59
+05'30'