IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD WRIT APPEAL NO. 2385 OF 2015 (S.R) BETWEEN:
SRI. RAJASHEKARAIAH SON OF I. C. RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS RETIRED ASSISTANT PROFESSOR MALNAD ENGINEERING COLLEG HASSAN, PRESENTLY RESIDENT OF NO.2237/1 ARALIKETTE CIRCLE NORTH LAYOUT HASSAN - 573 201 ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. K. GURUDUTT, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. A. C. BALARAJ, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION HIGHER EDUCATION M. S. BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION POST BOX NO.5045 PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL II IN KARNATAKA, OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E) KARNATAKA P B NO.5369 RESIDENCY PARK ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001.
4. THE PRINCIPAL MALNAD COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING POST BOX NO.21 HASSAN - 523 201.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.S. MAHENDRA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT 1 TO 3) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 19560 OF 2014 DATED 20/10/2014.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARIGN THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Heard appellant’s counsel. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 20.10.2014 in Writ Petition No.19560 of 2014 dismissing the writ petition on the ground of delay of 10 years in filing the petition, the petitioner has filed this appeal.
2. Primarily what was challenged before the learned Single Judge is that the order vide Annexure -G dated 12.2.2013 was made prospective in operation. Therefore, it should be made retrospective in operation to include the case of the petitioner. The petitioner has since retired from service in the year 2006. The writ petition was filed in the year 2014. Therefore, if at all the petitioner was really aggrieved by the said order, the same should have been agitated at the earliest point of time. Having waited for more than ten years, the delay has not been properly explained. Even otherwise, in terms of the impugned order, the relief has been granted prospectively. The respondents cannot be compelled to make it retrospective so as to include the petitioner and others.
We find no reason to interfere with the well considered order passed by the learned Single Judge. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed.
SD/- SD/-
JUDGE JUDGE nv