IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MAY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI WRIT PETITION NO.40905/2018(S-RES) BETWEEN:
SAMSKRUTA HITARAKSHANA SANGHA ERSTWHILE SAMSKRUTHA HITARAKSHANA SAMITHI BHARATHI STREET, SRINGERI CHIKKAMAGALUR DIST., KARNATAKA – 577 139 BY ITS SECRETARY SRI. SATHYANARAYANA M.K.
C/O RAJASHEKAR A, M.K. STREET SRINGERI, CHIKKAMAGALUR – 577 139.
(BY SRI. SHEELA KRISHNA., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, LANGUAGE DIVISION, SHASTRI BHAVAN NEW DELHI -110 058 REP. BY ITS DEPUTY SECRATORY.
2. RASHTREEYA SANSKRIT SANSTHAN (DEEMED UNIVERSITY) 56/57, INSTITUTIONAL AREA JANAKPURI, ‘D’ BLOCK ... PETITIONER NEW DELHI – 110 058 REP. BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR.
3. BOARD OF MANAGEMENT RASHTREEYA SANSKRIT SANSTHAN (DEEMED UNIVERSITY) 56/57, INSTITUTIONAL SANSTHAN JANAKPURI, ‘D’ BLOCK NEW DELHI – 110 058 REP. BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR.
4. DR. N.R. KANNAN PRINCIPAL, RASHTREEYA SANSKRIT SANSTHAN SRI. GANGANATH JHA CAMPUS ALLAHABAD – 211 002.
(BY SMT. PREMA HATTI., CGC FOR R-1;
... RESPONDENTS NOTICE NOT ORDERED IN R/O R-2 TO R-4) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:30.10.2012 VIDE ANNEX-E ISSUED BY R-2.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER In the instant petition petitioner has assailed the order dated 30.10.2012 vide Annexure-E and further sought for a declaration to confirm the order dated 29.06.2010 by which contesting respondent service condition to the extent that he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings in which he was penalized and later on modified by higher authority.
2. Petitioner which is an Organization/Sangha is nothing to do with the service condition of the fourth respondent. Service condition of the fourth respondent is between the employee and employer, since the petitioner is not concerned as an employer. Moreover no right of the petitioner is affected. Therefore, petitioner has not made out a locus to question the order dated 30.10.2012 and further seeking declaration to confirm the order dated 29.06.2010. Accordingly, petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE DR