IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI WRIT APPEAL No.3659 OF 2012 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
MANGALORE UNIVERSITY MANGALAGANGOTHRI- 574 199 DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. …..APPELLANT (BY SRI. T P RAJENDRAKUMAR SUNGAY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI M SEETHARAMA SON OF SRI MADANA POOJARI AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS WORKING AS CLERK-CUM-TYPIST DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS MANGALURU UNIVERSITY CHAIR IN RURAL BANKING AND MANAGEMENT MANGALAGANGOTHRI- 574 199. AND RESIDING AT KONAJE POST KONAJE, MANGALURU.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARAY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, M S BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE DIRECTORATE OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, SESHADRI ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.
4. THE PROFESSOR DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS MANGALURU UNIVERSITY CHAIR IN RURAL BANKING AND MANAGEMENT MANGALAGANGOTHRI-574 199.
5. THE CHAIR IN RURAL BANKING AND MANAGEMENT REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN & VICE CHANCELLOR MANGALURU UNIVERSITY MANGALAGANGOTHRI-574 199 ..RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SUBBARAO, SR. COUNSEL FOR M/S SUBBA RAO AND COMPANY, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
SRI. KIRAN KUMAR, HCGP FOR R-2 AND R-3 R-4 AND R-5 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 4.6.2012 PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION No.25989 OF 2010(S-RES) DATED 04.06.2012.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 4.6.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.25989 of 2010 remanding the matter to the respondent-University for fresh consideration, the respondent-University has filed this appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that various directions have been issued to the University. That the respondent is entitled to consider the case of the appellant in accordance with law.
3. Sri.Subba Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the counsel representing the counsel for respondent No.1 disputes the same.
4. On hearing learned counsels, we are of the view that no interference is called for.
5. The learned Single Judge has quashed the impugned order rejecting the request of the petitioner-employee for regularization and regular pay. The respondent-University was directed to consider the request of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law keeping in mind the observations made in the body of the order as expeditiously as possible.
6. Therefore, we do not find any ground to interfere. However, it is needless to clarify that the discretion of the University to consider the request of the petitioner shall be purely and clearly in accordance with the law.
With these observations, the appeal is disposed off.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE rs