IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. L. NARAYANA SWAMY ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.44141 OF 2018 (GM-RES) PIL BETWEEN:
SRI RAJESH GADI S/O LINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, THE CONVENOR, BRASTACHARA NIRMULANA SAMITHI NO.44, M.G.ROAD, KHILLE MOHALLA, LAKSHMIPURAM, POB NO.416, MYSURU - 570 001.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI RAJARAMA SOORYAMBAIL, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF POLICE (ADGP) RECRUITMENT AND TRAINING DIVISION CARLTON BHAVANA, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001 2. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE RECRUITMENT AND TRAINING DIVISION CARLTON BHAVANA, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001 3. THE POLICE COMMISSIONER MYSORE CITY, MYSURU-570 001 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S.H. PRASHANTH, AGA) ---
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS TO THE RESPONDENTS AUTHORITIES TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN DATED 31.03.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND TO ISSUE A DIRECTION TO THE 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS TO CONDUCT THE PROPER INVESTIGATION AND SUBMIT A REPORT IN REGARDING THE INVESTIGATION AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner has filed this public interest litigation alleging irregularities in the recruitment process to the post of police constables for the year 2014-15.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner made a representation on 31.03.2015 to the higher officers, as per Annexure-A, complaining about the malpractice/irregularity in conducting the examination for the said post.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the pleadings.
4. We find from the submissions that the petitioner has made the representation/complaint in the year 2015. But, thereafter he has not made any further effort in this regard. It is also not forthcoming as to what transpired after selection process in the year 2014-15. If at all any person is aggrieved, the remedy would be to file writ petition by such aggrieved person.
5. In view of the above, we find no ground to entertain this public interest litigation.
Accordingly, this petition is disposed of. However, liberty is reserved to the aggrieved persons, if any, to pursue their remedy before the appropriate forum.
No costs.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE ca