Sri. S. M. Rafeeq vs State Of Karnataka on 1 March, 2024
3. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for respondent No.3 contends that the writ petition lacks
merit and is misconceived, as the impugned order under
challenge dated 10.08.2023 was made in consideration of
public and administrative interests, explicitly stating
continuation until further orders. He asserts that no fault
or illegality can be found in the impugned order. Referring
5
to a previous case, Smt. Leelavathi vs. Sri Palaiah &
Ors1, it was admitted that there was a serious shortage of
candidates for the critical post of Municipal Commissioner,
and steps were being taken to address this issue. He
would contend that respondent No.3's appointment, being
a prerogative of the Government, was made to meet
public and administrative exigencies.