IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH REVIEW PETITION No.320/2014 IN WRIT PETITION No.15020/2013 (S-CAT) BETWEEN:
1. THE UNION OF INDIA REP. BY GENERAL MANAGER SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY KESHWAPUR, HUBLI DHARWAD (D)-580020 2. THE CHIEF PERSONNERL OFFICER SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY HUBLI, DHARWAD (D)-580020 (BY SRI N S PRASAD, ADV. FOR SMT. KAVITHA H C, ADV.) AND:
SRI RAVINDRA RAO S/O M RAMANAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS WORKING AS SENIOR SECTION ENGINEER/P.WAY, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY BANGALORE - 560001 (BY SRI H H KALADGI, ADV.) ... PETITIONERS ... RESPONDENT THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 27/01/2014 PASSED IN W.P.NO.15020/2013.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, A.S.BOPANNA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The instant review petition is filed by the respondent in the W.P.No.15020/2013 seeking review of the order dated 27.01.2014.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is evident that the petitioner is essentially aggrieved only to the extent of the observations made by this Court wherein the review petitioner herein were directed to provide training to the writ petitioner, if he fails in the earlier attempt.
3. The grievance of the review petitioner is that if the said observations remain in force, the review petitioner would have to consider every other employee in such manner and individual training would have to be provided which is contrary to the Regulations and would also not be feasible due to the cost involved.
4. In that background, insofar as the respondent herein is concerned, it is seen that he has subsequently taken up the examination and has already passed. If that be the position, the training being accorded to the respondent as observed and directed by this Court would not be necessary and all further actions relating to promotion in any event is to be considered in accordance with law which is a separate aspect and not the issue herein.
5. Hence, in order to address the apprehension of the petitioner, all that is necessary to be indicated herein is that the direction as issued to provide training to the respondent herein was in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case so as to provide an opportunity to the respondent herein and the same shall not be construed as a precedent for any other case, in which the facts are not similar to the facts herein. In such case, if any contentions in that regard are raised, the same would be considered on its own merits without reference to the order under review.
6. Hence, in view of the above clarification, we find that it is not necessary to proceed further in the matter and review the order passed in W.P.No.15020/2013.
Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE akc/bms