IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF MARCH, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR REVIEW PETITION NO.383 OF 2018 IN WRIT PETITION NO.28292 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
K.SRIDHAR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS S/O LATE SRI.G.KRISHNAPPA GOWDA RESIDING AT SHAMBUNAHALLI DUDDA HOBLI, GORAVALE POST MANDYA TALUK & DISTRICT.
(BY SRI.NAGAPRASANNA M., SR. COUNSEL A/W MS.SUVARNA M.L., ADV.) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOME DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL & INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU – 560 002.
… PETITIONER 3. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE & CHAIRMAN (RECRUITMENT & TRAINING) SPECIAL SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR RECRUITMENT OF SCIENTIFIC ASSISTANT COD CARLTOON HOUSE PALACE ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001.
4. THE MEMBER SECRETARY SPECIAL SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR RECRUITMENT OF SCIENTIFIC ASSISTANT & THE DIRECTOR FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORY MADIVALA BENGALURU – 560 068.
… RESPONDENTS (BY MS.NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA) - - -
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 20.09.2018 PASSED IN WP NO.28292/2018 (S-KSAT), ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Mr.Nagaprasanna.M, learned Senior counsel along with Ms.Suvarna M.L., learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.Niloufer Akbar, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.
2. Mr.Nagaprasanna.M, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that while passing the order dated 20.9.2018 factual error has crept-in at paragraph No.3 of the order, inasmuch as after the words “after completion of process of selection by notification dated 04.08.2004”, the next sentence should be inserted as “the petitioner had approached the Tribunal by filing a petition in the year 2004 vide application No.296/2004 which was disposed of on 16.12.2009 directing the respondents to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner”. However, the aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been noticed in the impugned order.
3. The aforesaid factual submission is not controverted by learned Additional Government Advocate.
4. In view of the submissions made and after perusal of the record, we are inclined to accede to the prayer made by learned Senior counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, it is directed that after the words “by issue of notification on 04.08.2004” in paragraph No.3 of the order dated 20.9.2018, the following sentence shall be read:-
“The petitioner challenged the process of selection by filing an application No.296/2004, which was disposed of by the Tribunal on 16.12.2009, by directing the respondents to decide the representation submitted by the petitioner.”
This order shall be read in conjunction with the order dated 20.9.2018.
Accordingly, review petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE VMB