Sri J Jayaram vs The Director General
2021 Latest Caselaw 1296 Kant

                         1



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

   DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

                     BEFORE

   THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

      WRIT PETITION No.40810/2018 (S - PRO)

BETWEEN

SRI J JAYARAM
S/O LATE JADIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
R/AT GURUNATH LAYOUT
HURULI CHIKKANAHALLI
HESARAGHATTA MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 090
                                     ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI H.T. NARAYAN, ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING))

AND

1 . THE DIRECTOR GENERAL
INDIAN COUNCIL OF
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH
KRISHI BHAVAN
NEW DELHI-110 001

2 . THE DIRECTOR
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF
HORTICULTURAL RESEARCH
HESARAGHATTA
BENGALURU-560 089                 ... RESPONDENTS
                            2



     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO DIRECT TO THE RESPONDENTS IN THE NATURE OF
MANDAMUS TO PASS AN APPROPRIATE ORDER BY
CONSIDERING THE PROMOTION OF THE PETITIONER AS
PER LAW AND TO GIVE BENEFIT THERE ON AND PASS
SUCH OTHER ORDER WHICH IS DEEMED FIT AND GRANT
NECESSARY RELIEF.

     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                        ORDER

The petitioner in this writ petition has sought for

a direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of

mandamus to consider the case of the petitioner for

promotion.

2. In the entire writ petition, there is no

pleading as to how the petitioner is entitled to

promotion to a particular cadre.

3. The petitioner has produced a judgment of

this Court in W.P.No.3314/2008, wherein this Court

had directed consideration of his promotion to the

post of Security Supervision, Grade-III and on such

non-consideration, a contempt was filed in

C.C.C.No.152/2013, which was dismissed on an order

being passed during the pendency of the Contempt

Petition reserving liberty to the petitioner to challenge

the said order.

4. The petitioner claims to be challenging an

order passed during the pendency of the Contempt

Petition of the year 2013 by filing a writ petition in the

year 2018, he had 10 years after his retirement. The

order is neither produced nor challenged. There is no

foundation laid in the entire writ petition as to how he

is entitled to any promotion.

5. Therefore, the writ petition which is bereft

of any material even to direct consideration of a

representation by issuance of a writ in the nature of

mandamus.

For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition lacks

merit and is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SJK