Dr. S.P. Raghunath vs The Chairman
2022 Latest Caselaw 4052 Kant

                           1


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                     DHARWAD BENCH

         DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
                        PRESENT

       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV
                          AND
        THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

            WRIT APPEAL No.100271/2021 (S-R)

BETWEEN:
DR. S.P. RAGHUNATH S/O S.P. PONNUSWAMY
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
OCC:RETD. ENGINEER IN CHIEF
R/O H.NO.350, 2ND CROSS,
2ND PHASE, IDEAL HOME TOWNSHIP,
RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR,
BENGALURU-98.
                                           ....APPELLANT
(BY SRI. K.B. LOKANATH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE CHAIRMAN
       BOARD OF GOVERNORS,
       IIT DHARWAD AND EX-OFFICIO
       SECRETARY, DEPT. OF HIGHER
       EDUCATION, SHASTRY BHAVAN,
       NEW DELHI-110011.

2.     THE DIRECTOR
       IIT, DHARWAD
       DIST:DHARWAD.

3.     THE GOVT. OF KARNATAKA
       REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
       VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.
                                   2


4.      UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
        OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES
        DEPARTMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER
        EDUCATION, TECHNICAL SECTION-1,
        SHASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110001.
                                        ....RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.G.K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR R3)

        THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE
THE   ORDER OF THE         LEARNED SINGLE         JUDGE   DATED
18.8.2021 PASSED IN WP NO.126424/2020 AND ALLOW THE
WRIT PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.


        THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERSPRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV J., DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:


                           JUDGMENT

This intra-court appeal is filed by the petitioner

before the learned Single Judge challenging the order

dated 18.8.2021 passed in WP No.126424/2020,

whereby the learned Single Judge had dismissed the

petition.

2. The parties are referred to by their rankings

in the aforesaid writ petition.

3. The petitioner had approached this Court

seeking for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari to

quash the order dated 31.12.2019 vide Annexure-H,

sought for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus

directing the 2nd respondent to reconsider the claim of

the petitioner as per representations at Annexures-D,

D1 & D2.

4. It is stated that the petitioner was a retired

Chief Engineer, who was serving in Karnataka Small

Industries Development Corporation and subsequent to

his retirement, he had applied for the post of Chief

Engineer (Projects) at Indian Institute of Technology,

Indore on contract basis. The petitioner was stated to

have been appointed on 13.7.2013 for a period of two

years and subsequently, his tenure was extended till

completion of the entire project. It is submitted that

even prior to completion of the project, the petitioner

was relieved, which action was challenged before the

High Court of Madhya Pradesh in WP No.4689/2015.

The said writ petition came to be rejected confirming the

order of relieving the petitioner, which was challenged in

WA No.318/2015, which again was dismissed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that he had approached the 1st respondent afresh, who

in turn, directed the petitioner to approach the 2nd

respondent and subsequently, rejection of request of the

petitioner by the 2nd respondent was again challenged

before this Court in WP No.114240/2019, which again

came to be disposed of. It is submitted that the

petitioner once again filed a representation with the 1st

respondent on 19.11.2019 and the 1st respondent issued

a communication dated 31.12.2019 vide Annexure-H

informing the petitioner that his request could not be

considered for the reason that he had already crossed

the prescribed age for consideration for appointment for

non-faculty posts, which has been challenged before the

learned Single Judge.

6. Learned Single Judge by a detailed order has

considered all contentions and has assigned the reasons

for rejecting the petition by a detailed analysis at para-8

of the impugned order. We find that the order of the

learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference.

Annexure-H that has been assailed is self-explanatory,

in fact, as per Annexure-H, there is observation that the

petitioner was at liberty to apply for suitable post in the

Institute, if he were to meet the eligibility criteria and

requirement as per the advertisement issued. Though it

is the contention of the petitioner that the reasons for

issuing Communication at Annexure-h are not in

accordance with law, considering the facts and

circumstances of the case, it is appropriate that the

litigation needs to be given quietus and the Courts

cannot issue repeated direction leading to fresh causes

of action eventually landing before this Court by way of

fresh writ. Request for employment is not only a

request of the petitioner, but also all people who are

unemployed and all unemployed persons should be

given an opportunity and giving preference to the

petitioner to jump the queue would not be appropriate

nor desirable. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

JTR