IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH REVIEW PETITION NO.411 OF 2018 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4468 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
MR. R. KRISHNA MURTHY SON OF MARDI RAMANNA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER HAL HIGH SCHOOL VIMANAPURA HAL CENTRAL TOWNSHIP BENGALURU-560 037.
...PETITIONER (BY SRI VEERESH SANGOLLI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI HARIKRISHNA S. HOLLA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION VIKASA SOUDHA DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. BLOCK EDUCATIONAL OFFICER BENGALURU SOUTH RANGE-4 KRISHNARAJAPURA BENGALURU-560 036.
3. THE HEAD MASTER HAL HIGH SCHOOL VIMANAPURA HAL CENTRAL TOWNSHIP BENGALURU-560 037.
(BY SRI KIRAN KUMAR, HIGH COURT … RESPONDENTS GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R-1 AND R-2) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 14.08.2018 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.4468 OF 2017, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
***** THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING ON INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This Review Petition is filed praying to review the order dated 14-8-2018 passed in Writ Petition No.4468 of 2017.
2. Heard learned counsels.
3. On hearing learned counsels, I do not find any error apparent on the face of the record. What was challenged in the order under review was an order of suspension dated 9-4-2016. The learned Government Advocate submitted that it is a matter which could be challenged by way of an appeal before the Educational Appellate Tribunal. The said submission was not disputed by the petitioner’s counsel. In view of the submission made, the petition was dismissed relegating him to the alternate remedy. Therefore, I do not find any error on the face of the record. Even otherwise, the material on record shows that the petitioner was suspended on 9-4-2016 which has been three years since then. The petitioner’s counsel is unable to state as to whether an enquiry has been initiated or what has happened for the last three years. It is reasonable to assume that an enquiry would have been initiated. Under these circumstances, there is no error apparent on the face of the record that calls for interference. Hence, the Petition is dismissed.
In view of the dismissal of the Review Petition, there is no necessity to consider the application for condonation of delay.
Sd/- JUDGE Rsk/-