IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR WRIT PETITION No. 16038 OF 2016 (S-RES) Between:
Sri Siddaraju N Aged about 31 years Son of Sri Neel Siddaiah Grama Sahika, Bilure Kollegal Taluk Chamarajanagara & Dist.-571440 Resident of Lokkanahalli Kollegal Taluk Chamarajanagar Dist: - 571411. (By Sri. S M Babu, Advocate) And:
1. The Regional Commissioner Mysore Division Mysore – 570001.
2. The Deputy Commissioner Chamarajanagara Dist., Chamarajanagara – 571441.
3. The Thasildar Chamarajanagara Dist., Chamarajanagara – 571441.
... Petitioner 4. Sri M Chikka Ranga Aged about 40 years Son of Sri Mada R/o Khanamola Doddi Bylur Village Kollegal Taluk Chamarajanagar Dist. – 571440.
... Respondents (By Sri. T S Mahantesh – AGA for R-1 to R-3;
Sri Veerabhadraswamy H P – Advocate for R-4) ****** This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to, quash Annex-D dated 05.10.2015, passed by the Respondent No.2 and Annexure-H dated 29.02.2016 issued by the Respondent No.3 and etc., This Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGA for Respondents 1 to 3. Respondent No.4 is represented by Sri. Veerabhadraswamy H.P.
2. The petitioner was appointed as a Temporary Village Assistant by order dated 14.08.2013 since the post fell vacant in view of the fourth respondent Sri. M. Chikka Ranga who was earlier discharging duties in the said post having been removed from service. However, the fourth respondent after a lapse of eight years from the order of his removal from service, filed an appeal before the second respondent – Deputy Commissioner questioning the appointment of the petitioner in his place. Consequently, the petitioner was directed to be terminated from service vide order dated 5.10.2015 Annexure-“D” and further was relieved from service as on 29.02.2016 vide Annexure-“H” and the fourth respondent M. Chikka Ranga was reinstated to the said post. It is these orders which are under challenge in this writ petition.
3. However, today, learned counsel for the respondent brings to the notice of this court an order dated 10.08.2016 passed by the Tahsildar, Kollegal Taluk. By the said order, it is evident that the fourth respondent – M. Chikka Ranga has been relieved from his duties as on 10.08.2016.
4. In view of the order dated 10.08.2016 passed by the Tahsildar, Kollegal Taluk relieving the fourth respondent from the temporary post of Village Assistant, the relief sought for by the petitioner in this writ petition does not survive for consideration.
Hence, the petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE KS