Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri K N Ashwin Kumar vs State Of Karnataka on 12 November, 2013

Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda

Bench: A.N. Venugopala Gowda

                                                          1




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

       DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2013
                          BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA

          WRIT PETITION NO.5224/2012 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

Sri K.N. Ashwin Kumar,
S/o. Narasimhareddy,
Aged about 25 years,
C/o. Mohan Kumar,
R/at No.45/6, 3rd Cross,
DCA Complex, 2nd Stage,
Dommulur,
Bangalore - 560 071.
                                                ...PETITIONER
(By Sri K.V. Narasimhan, Adv.)

AND:

1.      State of Karnataka,
        By its Chief Secretary,
        Vidhana Soudha,
        Bangalore.

2.      Principal Secretary,
        Housing Department,
        Government of Karnataka,
        Vikasa Soudha,
        Bangalore.

3.      Principal Secretary,
        Department of Public Administration &
        Reforms (Services),
                                                          2




     Government of Karnataka,
     Vidhana Soudha,
     Bangalore.

4.   Rajiv Gandhi Rural Housing
     Corporation Ltd.,
     No.1-4, North Block, 1st Floor,
     I.T. Park, Rajajinagar 6th Block,
     Industrial Area,
     Bangalore - 560 010.

5.   Sri Mahadeva Prasad,
     Aged about 50 years,
     In-charge Managing Director & General
     Manager (Programme Implementation),
     2nd Floor, ABB Building Complex,
     Industrial Area, Rajajinagar,
     Bangalore - 560 010.
                                       ...RESPONDENTS

(By Smt. B.P. Rupa, HCGP for R1 to R3;
    Sri J.C. Kumar, Adv. for R4;
    Sri Pruthvi Wodeyar for
    M/s. Jayakumar S. Patil Associates, Advs. for R5)

      This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India, praying to quash the letter of
appointment issued by the 4th respondent - Board at
Annexure-G dated 5.2.2008 and quash the notification
issued by the 1st respondent at Annexure -H dated
24.9.2009.

     This petition coming on for preliminary hearing in 'B'
group this day, the Court made the following:
                                                                    3




                               ORDER

This writ petition has been filed by a public spirited person to quash the letter of appointment issued by the 4th respondent appointing the 5th respondent as a Managing Director of the 1st respondent and for grant of consequential reliefs.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent submitted that the 5th respondent was only placed in additional charge of the post of the Managing Director and General Manager and that the 5th respondent has ceased to hold the post of the Managing Director and General Manager of the 4th respondent Corporation. He submitted that the Government having posted IAS and KAS officers to function as the Managing Director and General Manager respectively of the 4th respondent Corporation, this writ petition has rendered itself infructuous.

3. Government of Karnataka has issued a Notification bearing No.DPAR 412 SAS 2013 dated 14.6.2013 transferring Dr.K.G.Jagadeesha, IAS (KN 2005), 4 Director, Horticulture Department with immediate effect and his services was placed at the disposal of the Housing Department for being posted as Managing Director, Rajiv Gandhi Rural Housing Corporation Limited, in the existing vacancy. Learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent submitted that Dr.K.G.Jagadeesha having reported in pursuance of the post given by the Housing Department, is functioning as the Managing Director of the 4th respondent.

4. Under a Notification dated 3.9.2013, Sri G.Prabhu, KAS (Senior Scale) has been redeployed to work as General Manager of the 4th respondent Corporation and according to the learned advocate appearing for the 4th respondent, the said officer is working as the General Manager.

5. Submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent is supported by the notifications noticed supra, issued by the Government. Since 5th respondent has ceased to hold the post of 5 Managing Director and General Manager of the 4th respondent, on in-charge basis, the grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition does not survive for consideration.

Petition is disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE Ksj/-