IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R. DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO.13430/2019(S-RES) BETWEEN PRAKASH REVANNAPPA S/O REVANAPPA AGEDA BOUT 42 YERAS OCCUPATION: NIL RESIDING AT KEROOR (H) POST AHEMDABAD, TALUK BALKI DISTRICT BIDAR-585 413.
(BY SRI PRASANNA KUMAR P, ADVOCATE) AND KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION UDYOG SOUDA NEAR VIDHANA SOUDA OPPOSITE TO AG & CID OFFICE BENGALURU KARNATAKA-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DTD:19.1.2018 OF THE APPLICANT [PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-J] AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER UPLOADED IN THE WEBSITE OF THE RESPONDENT ON 28.11.2016 [PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-H] TO THE POST OF DRAWING TEACHER UNDER THE DIPLOMA CATEGORY AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioner is Diploma holder in Drawing and Painting. The petitioner applied for the post of Drawing Teacher, pursuant to the notification dated 03.11.2016, issued by the respondent-Karnataka Public Service Commission. It is contention of the petitioner that he completed primary and secondary education in Keroor Village at Balki Taluk, Bidar District and he is eligible under Rural category reservation. When the respondent published the names of short listed candidates, the name of the petitioner was not found in the list. It was later given to understand that the petitioner had made a mistake in selecting the Bachelor Course as his qualification instead of Diploma Course. In that regard, the petitioner made a representation on 19.10.2018 to the respondent.
2. The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner approached the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, in Application No.1070/2019. Later, on 12.03.2019, the petitioner has withdrawn the application with liberty to approach the appropriate forum. The Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that instant petition is filed as there is no alternative remedy.
3. The writ petition does not contain any information as to the present position of the recruitment process, which had commenced in the year 2016. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that no purpose will be survived by entertaining this petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
SD/- JUDGE DL