IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MAY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI W.P. NO.13806 OF 2015 (S-KSRTC) BETWEEN:
SRI.CHANNAVEERAPPA CHAGGIKICHADI S/O.FAKEERAPPA CHAGGIKICHADI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS BIRABBI POST, HOOVINAHADAGALI TALUK BELLARY DISTRICT-583 2019 … PETITIONER (BY SRI.ARAVIND H., ADV.) AND:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION CENTRAL OFFICE, SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU-560 027 2. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION CHIKKAMAGALURU DIVISION CHIKKAMAGALURU-573 202 3. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION CHAMARAJANAGARA DIVISION CHAMARAJANAGARA-571 313 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.SHWETHA ANAND, ADV.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE OFFICE ORDER DT:12.07.2011 (ANNEXURE-H) ISSUED BY THE R-2 REMOVING THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER FROM THE SELECT LIST IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AND ETC.
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Petitioner has assailed the office order dated 12.07.2011 vide Annexure ‘H’ in this petition.
2. The Divisional Controller, Chickmagalur/ recruiting authority for the post of driver notified a list of candidates who did not appear in which petitioner’s name is reflected is under challenge.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that documents were misplaced for which he had filed a compliant. Therefore, not producing documents on time was beyond his control. Therefore, Ann.’H’ is liable to be set-aside insofar as petitioner is concerned.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently contended that petitioner failed to appear and produce relevant documents for the purpose of recruitment to the post of driver. There is an inaction on the part of the petitioner. Therefore, question of interfering vide Annexure ‘H’ has not been made out.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
On perusal of Annexure ‘H’ and conduct of the petitioner, it is evident that petitioner has failed to appear pursuant to the selection to the post of driver with the respondent. He has also not produce the relevant documents for the purpose of considering his selection and appointment to the post of driver. Due to misplace of documents, Petitioner has nor approached authority to extend time for production of documents. In view of these facts and circumstances, petitioner has not made out a case so as to interfere with Annexure ‘H’. Accordingly, petition stands dismissed.
Brn Sd/- JUDGE