Karnataka High Court
M/S Shankramma vs Principal District And Session Judge ... on 5 July, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6428
WP No. 202775 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO. 202775 OF 2022 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
M/S. SHANKRAMMA
D/O SANGMESH BILEBHAVI
AGE: 32 YEARS
OCC:SECOND DIVISIONAL ASSISTANT
R/O S.R. COLONY
BAGALKOT ROAD
VIJAYAPURA-586 109.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VENKATESH S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally 1. PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
signed by
VARSHA N VIJAYAPURA -586 101.
RASALKAR
Location: 2. CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
High Court
Of Karnataka DISTRICT COURT
BAGALKOT ROAD
VIJAYAPURA-586 109.
3. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6428
WP No. 202775 of 2022
(BY SRI PRASHANTH O.M., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI S.Y. SHIVALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-
THE PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT 1 VIZ DATED 24.06.2022
UNDER NO. NIL AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Sri Prashanth O.M., learned counsel submits that he has been instructed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
2. In this petition, the petitioner is assailing order dated 24.06.2022 (Annexure-H), whereby, the application made by the petitioner, seeking reversion from the post of SDA to the post of Process Server is rejected by the respondent No.1 herein.
3. Heard Sri Venkatesh S., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Prashanth O.M., learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. S.Y.Shivalli, for the respondents. -3-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6428 WP No. 202775 of 2022
4. Sri Venkatesh S., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that, the petitioner though promoted to the post of SDA from the post of Process Server, however, due to nature of work and health issues, it is not possible for the petitioner to work in the post of SDA and accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court.
5. Per contra, Sri Prashanth O.M., learned counsel appearing for the respondents sought to justify the impugned order passed by respondent No.1.
6. Having taken note of the factual faspects on record that, the respondent No.1 has stated in the order produced at Annexure-H that, there is no vacant post of Process Server in Vijayapura unit and said post has to be filled up through direct recruitment. Therefore, I am of the view that, the reasons stated by the petitioner cannot be a ground to interfere with the order impugned passed by respondent No.1, in this Writ Petition . Accordingly, the writ petition is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE SB List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1