IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.50849 OF 2018 (S -RES) BETWEEN:
Mr. Aravind K.V., Son of Late K.S. Venkatachala Rao Aged about 37 years, Residing at No.476, 14th Main Road, B.S.K. I stage, Srinivasanagar II Phase Bangalore 560 050 ... Petitioner (By Shri. Samarth Prakash, Advocate) AND:
1. The Chairman Bangalore Development Authority, T Chowdaiah Road, Kumara Park, Bangalore 560 020 2. The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority, T Chowdaiah Road, Kumara Park, Bangalore 560 020 3. The Secretary, Bangalore Development Authority, T Chowdaiah Road, Kumara Park, Bangalore 560 020 ... Respondents THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS ISSUED ON 05.08.98 (ANNEXURE-E) ON 13/05/1999 (ANNEXURE-F) AND REPRESENTATIONS FROM 31.01.2003 TO 13.02.2013 COLLECTIVELY MARKED AS (ANNEXURE-L) SEEKING THAT PETITONER BE APPOINTED UNDER COMPASSIONATE GROUNDS BASED ON HIS EDUCATION.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Petitioner filed an application seeking appointment on compassionate ground with the Bengaluru Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘BDA’ for short) after the death of his father on 23.07.1998. The BDA appointed him as Group-D employee by order dated 30.11.2012. Petitioner did not report for duty. Thereafter he kept corresponding with BDA seeking employment under Group- ‘C’ category. The BDA by communication dated 11.8.2017 has rejected his request. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider his representations made in the year 2003, 2004, 2006,2007, 2012 and 2013.
2. Shri. Samarth Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a Degree holder in Commerce, therefore, he ought to have been appointed for a post under Group-‘C’ category. But, respondent- authorities without proper application of mind have issued the impugned communication. Petitioner is entitled for the post under Group-‘C’ category as per his qualification. Accordingly, he sought for a direction to BDA to consider petitioner’s representation.
3. Admittedly, BDA considered petitioner’s case and issued an appointment order on 30.11.2012. The petitioner has not chosen to join, but kept on corresponding with the BDA. By the impugned order, the respondent-authorities have stated that since petitioner has not joined for the post offered to him, his request cannot be considered for the second time. The said reasoning is unassailable because petitioner has chosen not to report for duty. Further petitioner’s father passed away in the year 1998 and nearly 22 years have elapsed from the date of cause of action. In the circumstances, there is no merit in the petition.
Resultantly this petition must fail and it is accordingly dismissed.
No costs.
Psg* Sd/- JUDGE