IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI WRIT PETITION NO.30254/2016 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
Vijay Kumar P.A., S/o P.V.Anjappa Aged about 32 years Working as English Teacher in Morarji Desai Residential School (BCM) R/o Uthanoor Village & Post, Mulabagilu Taluk Kolar District-563 131.
(By Sri Nithyanand V. Naik, Advocate) AND:
1. State of Karnataka Represented by its Secretary Dept. of Social Welfare Vikasa Soudha Bengaluru-560 001.
…Petitioner 2. The Karnataka Residential Educational Institutions Society, Represented by its Executive Director, Roopa Complex, No.179, II and III Floor, I Main, Sheshadripuram, Bengaluru-560 020.
3. The Principal Morarji Desai Residential School Kutandla Halli, Mulabagil Taluk Kolar District-563 131.
(By Sri Sreedhar N. Hegde, HCGP for R1; Sri Nagaiah, Advocate for R2;
R3 Served but unrepresented) …Respondents This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to direct to hold that the petitioner as regularly recruited teachers during no rule period is entitled to be continued in service till the age of superannuation and in the alternatively direct holding that the petitioner is working on deputation and is required to be absorbed under Rule 7 of the Karnataka Residential Education Institutions Society (Cadre and Recruitment) Regulations 2011 and also is entitled to be continued in service till the age of superannuation and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R In the instant petition petitioner has sought for various directions including issuance of order of appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher.
2. Petitioner is stated to have been appointed on contract basis in the year 2008. The respondents issued a Notification to fill up various posts in terms of regulation governing each of the posts. Petitioner participated in the process of selection pursuant to the advertisement dated 21.01.2011 and his name has been reflected in the final selection list in the year 2015. For no reasons, petitioner’s name was not considered for appointment on par with others. Thus, the present writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents filed a memo along with a copy of the appointment order dated 15.5.2019 by which petitioner has been appointed with certain conditions.
4. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is entitled to retrospective appointment and further he is entitled for consequential service benefits including arrears. In the present case scope of interference is only limited to the writ of mandamus. During pendency of the present petition respondents have issued an order of appointment on 15.5.2019. Unless and until petitioner questions the relevant conditions imposed in the order of appointment, petitioner is not entitled to consequential benefits other than what has been extended in the order of appointment dated 15.5.2019. Accordingly, writ petition has become infructuous.
5. Writ petition stands disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the validity of the conditions imposed in the order of appointment and to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law.
In view of disposal of the writ petition, IA No.1/2018 does not survive for consideration and accordingly, the same is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE AP*