In The High Court Of Karnataka At Bengaluru DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MAY, 2019 BEFORE The Hon’ble mr. Justice P.B.Bajanthri Writ Petition No. 57646 of 2016 (s-res) BETWEEN:
SRI. ESHWARAPPA. M S/O LATE M.KALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS TRAINING OFFICER T.M.A.E.S. INDUSTRIAL TRAINING INSTITUTE BHADRAVATHI SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577301.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIGHNESHWAR. S SHASTRI, ADV.,) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING KAUSHALYA BHAVANA, NEAR DAIRY CIRCLE BANNERUGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 029.
3. JOINT DIRECTOR OF TRAINING BANGALORE DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING KAUSHALYA BHAVANA NEAR DAIRY CIRCLE, BANNERUGHATTA ROAD BENGALURU - 560 029.
4. SRI. THEGGINAMATH ARTS AND EDUCATION SOCIETY HARAPANAHALLI – 583 131 DAVANAGERE DISTRICT BY ITS SECRETARY – 583 101 5. PRINCIPAL T.M.A.E.S. INDUSTRIAL TRAINING INSTITUTE, HOSPET, BELLARY DISTRICT – 583 101.
6. PRINCIPAL T.M.A.E.S. INDUSTRIAL TRAINING INSTITUTE BHADRAVATHI, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 301.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SRIDHAR N HEGDE, HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-3;
SRI. M. SUBRAMANYA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R-4 TO R-6) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER AND CONSEQUENTIAL DIRECTIONS DATED 14.8.2015 ISSUED BY R- 3 VIDE ANNEXURE-L. 2. QUASH THE ORDER DATED 21.10.2015 PASSED BY R-3 AS PER ANNEXURE-M AND ETC.
THIS WP COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER In the instant petition, the petitioner has assailed the Communications dated 14.8.2015, 21.10.2015, 07.09.2015, 01.02.2016, 18.4.2016 and 01.09.2016 vide Annexures-L, M, N, R, S and T respectively. Annexures- L, M N, R and S are internal communications between the Government and fourth respondent relating to recovery of certain amounts which is stated to have been paid by the State Government while the petitioner was on deputation. The petitioner is stated to have been working against an unaided post. Therefore, the State Government cannot take the burden of whatsoever the money spent on his deputation post. Thus, the petitioner has no locus insofar as questioning the validity of Anneuxres-L, M, N, R and S. Insofar as the notice dated 01.09.2016 vide Annexure-T is concerned, it is the communication between the fourth respondent and the petitioner. It is only a notice. Therefore, the petitioner is permitted to submit his explanation to the fourth respondent – Management within a period of four weeks from today. If such representation or explanation is furnished, if any, the fourth respondent is hereby directed to pass speaking order after due consideration of each contention to be raised and communicate decision to the petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt of petitioner’s explanation.
With the above observations, the petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
Judge SA Ct:sr