IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR WRIT PETITION No. 4923/2016 (S-RES) Between:
Kemparamaiah Aged about 55 years S/o Nagi Kempaiah r/o No.96, Kadamba Satyanarayana Layout Mahalakshmipuram Bangalore – 560086 Presently working as Chief Engineer Cauvery Bhavan, K G Road Bangalore – 560001.
... Petitioner (By Sri. Balram R Rao, Advocate - Absent) And:
1. The State of Karnataka Represented by its Principal Secretary Urban Development Department Vidhan Soudha Bangalore – 560001.
2. Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Bangalore Rept. By its Chairman BWSSB, Cauvery Bhavan Bangalore – 560009.
3. The Chief Administrative Officer and Secretary BWSSB, Cauvery Bhavan Bangalore – 560009.
4. Sri S Krishnappa Aged about 60 years S/o Not known to the Petitioner Engineer in Chief BWSSB, Cauvery Bhavan Bangalore – 560009.
... Respondents (By Sri. T S Mahantesh, AGA for R-1;
Sri. B L Sanjeev – Advocate for R-2 and R-3; Sri Deshraj and P. Changalaraya Reddy – Advocates for R-4) ****** This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to call for the entire records relating to concerning and connected with the order dated 01.02.2016, bearing No.BWSSB Mu Aa Aa-Ka/CGu- 02/3861/2015-16, vide Annexure-J issued by the 2nd Respondent and etc., This Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER There is no representation for the petitioner. Learned AGA for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for other respondents are present.
2. In this writ petition the petitioner has sought for quashing of the impugned order dated 1.2.2016 as per Annexure-J issued by the second respondent and further, to direct respondent Nos.1 and 2 to fill the post of the Engineer in Chief in the services of the second respondent Board w.e.f. 1.2.2016 by promotion as prescribed under the Rules as per Annexure-B.
3. Learned AGA for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 fairly submits that three months’ period has already been expired and moreover, the petitioner has already been promoted to the next post on 09.08.2016. Therefore, this writ petition has become infructuous. The submission is placed on record. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous.
DKB Sd/- JUDGE