Karnataka High Court
The Director vs Smt V S Krithika on 22 November, 2013
Bench: Mohan.M.Shantanagoudar, K.N.Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2013
:PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAN.M.SHANTANAGOUDAR
:AND:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA
WRIT PETITION NO.37338/2013 (S-KAT)
BETWEEN:
1. THE DIRECTOR
KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT LOKA SHIKSHANA
6TH FLOOR,
KARNATAKA SECONDARY EDUCATION BOARD,
MALLESWARAM, BANGALORE - 03
2.THE SECRETARY
PRIMARY AND HIGHER EDUCATION
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
M S BUILDING, BANGALORE - 01. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI PAVAN KUMAR B. BAJENTRI, AGA.)
AND
SMT V S KRITHIKA
48 YEARS, W/O N SEETHARAM
WORKING AS TYPIST
O/O THE DIRECTORATE OF MASS EDUCATION
6TH FLOOR, KARNATAKA SECONDARY
EDUCATION BOARD, MALLESWARAM
BANGALORE -03 ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RANGANATH S JOIS, ADV. )
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ATICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DT.6.11.12, PASSED BY THE
KARANATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE
IN APPLICATION NO.2651/2012 PRODUCED AT ANN-A.
AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, MOHAN M. SHANTANA GOUDAR, J.
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The Order of Karnataka Administrative Tribunal dated 6.11.2012 in Application No.2651/2012 is called in question in this Writ Petition by the State. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has directed the petitioners herein to consider the case of the respondent for regularisation in the light of the observations made in the course of the order and to pass appropriate order within three months.
2. During the course of the order, the Tribunal has observed that it does not find any reason to disallow the claim of the respondent herein for consideration of her case for regularisation of services in terms of the judgment of the apex court in the case of Secretary State of Karnataka and 3 Others Vs. Umadevi (3) and others reported in ILR 2006 KAR 2607 = (2006) 4 SCC 1.
3. We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order inasmuch as no harm will be caused to the petitioners in case, if the respondent's case for regularisation of her services is considered in terms of the Order passed by the apex court in the case of Umadevi cited supra.
4. The Tribunal was not specifically directed the petitioner to regularize the services of the respondent. It is open for the petitioners to consider on merits the case of the respondent in accordance with law. Hence, no interference is called for.
Petition fails and accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE PL