IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2018 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BELLUNKE WRIT PETITION No.58235 OF 2017 (S-KAT) BETWEEN:
SRI RAMESHAGOUDA S/O RAMANAGOUDA DODDAGOUDAR, AGE:42 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER IN GOVT URDU HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, BAILHONGAL, R/O BASAVANAGAR 4TH CROSS, BAILHONGAL, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST:BELAGAVI-591109 (By Sri. K H BAGI ADV.) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, EDUCATION DEPT. NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560001 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, BELAGAVI-590001 ... PETITIONER 3. BLOCK EDUCATIONAL OFFICER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, TQ:BAILHONGAL, DIST:BELAGAVI-591109 4. SMT. P M HANABARATTI W/O S.G.BELAGAVI, AGE:45 YEARS, OCC:TEACHER, R/O CHANNAMMANAGAR IST CROSS, JANANI BUILDING, BAILHONGAL, TA:BAILHONGAL, DIST:BELAGAVI-591109 ... RESPONDENTS (By Sri.RAVI HOSMANI, AGA FOR R1-R3;
SRI.VINAYAK S.KULKARNI, ADV. FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NO.4014/2017 DATED 12.12.2017 VIDE ANNEX-G BY ALLOWING THIS W.P. AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo enclosing memorandum dated 24 .04.2018 and 24.05 .2018 issued by the respective authorities namely respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein posting respondent No.4 to the Government Higher Primary School, Lakshmi Nagar, Naganur, Bailhongal Taluk. The same is taken on record.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner’ s present posting has not been affected by the said order of the State Government. Therefore, the Writ Petition could be disposed of accordingly.
3. Learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3 submits that in view of the orders passed by respondent Nos.2 & 3 authorities, this writ petition would not survive for further consideration.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that in the event respondent No.4 is aggrieved by the orders dated 24.04.2018 and 24.05.2018, liberty may be reserved to her to assail the same before the appropriate forum.
5. In view of the aforesaid subsequent orders passed by the respondent authorities, this Writ Petition would not call for any further consideration by this Court. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of reserving liberty to respondent No. 4 to challenge orders dated 24.04.2018 and 24.05.2018, if so advised.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE RK/-