Dr S Divakar S/O Late B.G.Soundar vs Union Of India on 7 June, 2012

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Dr S Divakar S/O Late B.G.Soundar vs Union Of India on 7 June, 2012

Bench: H.N.Nagamohan Das

                          1



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

        DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2012

                       BEFORE

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

         WRIT PETITION NO:10486/2012 (S-RES)

BETWEEN

DR S DIVAKAR S/O LATE B.G.SOUNDAR
AGED 58 YEARS,
DIRECTOR GRADE SCIENTIST-SCIENTIST-G
HEAD, FTBE DEPARTMENT
CENTRAL FOOD TECHNOLOGICAL RESEARCH
INSTITUTE (CFTRI), MYSORE-570 020

                                        ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI M ARUN PONAPPA, ADV.)

AND

1.    UNION OF INDIA
      MINISTRY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
      COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL
      RESEARCH, ANUSANDHAN BHAVAN,
      NO.2, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI-110 001
      (R/BY ITS DIRECTOR GENERAL
      DR.SAMIR K BRAHAMACHARI)

2.    CENTRAL FOOD TECHNOLOGICAL
      RESEARCH INSTITUTE (CFTRI)
      MYSORE-570 020
      (R/BY ITS ACTING DIRECTOR DR.G.
      VENKATESWARA RAO

                                   ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M VASUDEVA RAO SENIOR, ADV. FOR R1
R2 SERVED)
                           2



      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO STAY THE OPERATION OF
ANNEXURE-L DATED 30.3.2012 AND FURTHER DIRECT
THE RESPONDENTS TO PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO
CONTINUE IN SERVICE AS SCIENTIST-G AND HEAD OF
DEPARTMENT OF FERMENTATION TECHNOLOGY AND BIO
ENGINEERING, UNTIL HIS AGE OF SUPERANNUATION TILL
30.9.2013.

    THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE       THE
FOLLOWING:-
                       ORDER

In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 13.3.2012 at Annexure-L relieving the petitioner as Head of Department of Fermentation Technology and Bio-Engineering in the respondents' establishment.

2. The respondents have filed statement of objections interalia contending that under Section 14(2) of Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 jurisdiction of this Court is excluded. 3

3. The Supreme Court in the case of L.CHANDRA KUMAR v/s UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261 and in the case of STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v/s U.P.RAJYA KHANIJ VIKAS NIGAM SANGHARSH SAMITI reported in 2009 (1) SCC L&S 237 has held that High Court should not entertain the petitions under Article 226 of Constitution of India when an efficacious alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved party.

4. In view of this dictum of Apex Court, this writ petition is hereby disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedy before the Central Administrative Tribunal.

Ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE DM*

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court