IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.8035 OF 2019 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN:
J. RAJANIKANTH REDDY SON OF LATE JAYARAMAIAH WORKING AS ADDITIONAL SHERISTEDAR YELAHANKA TALUK, YELAHANKA BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI. M. NAGAPRASANNA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. M. L. SUVARNA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S.BUILDING, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S.BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.
3. SMT.H.C.USHA WIFE OF SRI S.C. SATHYAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS WORKING AS DEPUTY TAHSILDAR KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVENAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL.
... RESPONDENTS (SRI. I. THARANATH POOJARY, ADDITIONALGOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2;
SRI. R. B. SADASIVAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR/RESPONDENT NO.3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRIT PETITION, SET SIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.2.2019 PASSED BY THE KARANAKA SATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NO.8004 OF 2018 [UNDER ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITION] AND DISMISS APPLICATION NO.8004 OF 2018 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND GRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. Aggrieved by the order dated 12.02.2019 passed in Application No.8004 of 2018 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal accepting the plea of the applicant before it and directing the respondents therein to continue the applicant as Additional Sheristedar, Yelahanka Taluk office, till the end of April 2019, respondent No.3 therein has filed this petition.
3. Sri M. Nagaprasanna, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Ms.M.L.Suvarna, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order of the Tribunal requires to be set aside. That the Tribunal went out of its way in accepting the plea of the applicant to remain till the end of April 2019. The same is countered by the learned counsel for the caveator/respondent No.3, who has filed his objections.
4. However, on considering the contentions, we do not find any ground to interfere with the said order. The Tribunal accepted the request of the applicant on the ground that the applicant’s daughter is studying in 5th standard in Kendriya Vidyalaya, Malleswaram, Bengaluru. Therefore, it was requested that the applicant be continued till the end of April 2019. The Tribunal in its best judgment exercised its equity and accepted the plea of the applicant therein. When the Tribunal has passed an order on equity, we do not find any valid ground to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Tribunal. However, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 reiterates that respondent No.3 undertakes to quit and vacate the office on or before 30.04.2019.
5. Her undertaking is once again placed on record with regard to handing over charge. The petition is disposed off.
The learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance in four weeks.
SD/- SD/-
JUDGE JUDGE SA