IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF MAY 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. K. SUDHINDRARAO AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.14883/2019 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN:
SRI K. NAGARAJ, S/O KALE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, SENIOR VETERINARY INSPECTOR, RESIDING AT UMMADAHALLI, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI MURALIDHAR H.M., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY & FISHERIES (ANIMAL HUSBANDRY), KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, VIKASA SODHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY & VETERINARY SERVICES, V.V. TOWER , DR. B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S.V. GIRIKUMAR, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 20.03.2019 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU, IN APPLICATION NOS.1551 TO 1577/2019 IN SO FAR AS DECLINING TO GRANT INTERIM RELIEF AS PRAYED FOR VIDE ANNEXURE-A; AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, B. M. SHYAM PRASAD J, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The present writ petition is filed impugning the order dated 20.3.2019 passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (‘Tribunal’ for short) in Application Nos.1551 to 1577/2019 insofar as the petitioner. The petitioner, who was working as Senior Veterinary Inspector, challenged the order of cancellation of his promotion as Senior Veterinary Inspector along with similarly situated persons. On the prayer for interim order of stay of cancellation of such promotion, the Tribunal has only recorded that it was of the opinion that no interim prayer could be granted without reply from the respondents.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the promotion was granted in the month of May 2018 and the petitioner has been functioning in such capacity. However, by virtue of the order dated 13.3.2019, impugned in the application before the Tribunal, the petitioner is being disturbed. There could be allegations, and indeed an enquiry into those allegations, but that cannot be a reason for denying the benefit of promotion even before an enquiry. The Tribunal has not considered this facet of the petitioner’s case.
3. The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that the interim prayer is not rejected by the Tribunal, and the consideration is only deferred till the objections are filed. The State would not procrastinate in filing objections and the petition could be disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to move the Bench after the objections are filed.
He also relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.19049-19053/2019 disposed of on 26.4.2019, stating that such orders are already made in similar matters.
4. This Court is of the considered view that as the prayer for interim relief is still pending consideration before the Tribunal, it would be appropriate to dispose of the writ petition reserving liberty to the petitioner to move the Tribunal immediately after reopening for consideration of the applications on merits directing the State to file its objections, if any, without any delay. Further, the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the application within a period of two weeks thereafter.
SD/- JUDGE SD/- JUDGE MD