The Director vs Sri Shanmukhayyya
2022 Latest Caselaw 12179 Kant

                          1



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022

                      PRESENT

            THE HON'BLE MR. ALOK ARADHE
                ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

                         AND

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY

             W.A. NO.108 OF 2022 (S-RES)
                         IN
            W.P. NO.21472 OF 2019 (S-RES)

BETWEEN:

1.     THE DIRECTOR
       DEPARTMENT OF PRE UNIVERSITY EDUCATION
       SAMPIGE ROAD, 18TH CROSS
       MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560 012.

2.     THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
       PRE-UNIVERSITY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
       KALABURAGI DISTRICT, KALABURAGI-03.

                                      ... APPELLANTS
(BY MRS. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AGA)

AND:

SRI. SHANMUKHAYYYA
S/O MAHALAYYASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
RETD. LECTURER, SB PRE-UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
R/O SHARANANAGAR, KALABURGAI.
                                    ... RESPONDENT
                                2



       THIS   WRIT   APPEAL   IS   FILED      U/S   4   OF   THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS
WRIT     APPEAL   AND   SET   ASIDE     THE    ORDER     DATED
23/06/2021, PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN
WP NO.2147/2019 (S-RES).           PASS ANY SUCH OTHER
ORDER/s.

       THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY,        ACTING   CHIEF    JUSTICE         DELIVERED      THE
FOLLOWING:


                        JUDGMENT

This intra court appeal has been filed against the

order dated 23.06.2021 passed by learned Single

Judge by which he has directed release of terminal

benefits of petitioner for which he is entitled to within

four months from the date of receipt of copy of the

order.

2. Learned Additional Government Advocate at

the outset submitted that there is no original record

available other than the statement viz., Annexure-R3

prepared by Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Pre-University

College of Arts and Commerce, Gulbarga. The

aforesaid document does not reflect that the

respondent was appointed against a post reserved for

scheduled caste category.

3. From perusal of the records, we find that

the respondent was not appointed against any post

reserved for scheduled caste category nor his service

records depicts that he belonged to either scheduled

caste or scheduled tribe category and also that the

appointment of the respondent against a post reserved

for schedule caste category was not approved by the

Government.

For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find

any ground to differ with the view taken by learned

Single Judge.

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby

dismissed.

Sd/-

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

SS