Karnataka High Court
Shashikanth S/O Srikanth Bhalke vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 December, 2023
Author: R.Devdas
Bench: R.Devdas
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9261-DB
WA No.200141 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
WRIT APPEAL NO.200141 OF 2019 (S-TER)
BETWEEN:
1. SHASHIKANTH S/O SRIKANTH BHALKE
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE
R/O. H.NO.13-3-50, LADGERI
DIST : BIDAR.
2. MAHADEVI D/O ISHWAR BHAMSHETTY
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE
R/O JERPET HUMNABAD
DIST. BIDAR
Digitally signed by
VARSHA N ...APPELLANTS
RASALKAR
Location: High
Court Of Karnataka (BY SRI. P.VILAS KUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR
SRI. NITESH PADIYAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPD. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVT.
DEPT. OF RDPR - 585 401
VIKAS SOUDH, BENGALURU - 01
2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
ZILLA PANCHAYAT, BIDAR - 585 401
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9261-DB
WA No.200141 of 2019
3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
ZILLA PANCHAYAT, KALABURAGI - 585 103
4. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER
TALUKA PANCHAYAT
BASAVAKALYAN, DIST. BIDAR - 585 401
5. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER
TALUKA PANCHAYAT, HUMNABAD
DIST. BIDAR - 585 401
6. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER
TALUKA PANCHAYAT, ALAND
DIST. KALABURAGI - 585 302
7. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER
TALUKA PANCHAYAT, CHITTAPUR
DIST. KALABURAGI - 585 201
8. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER
TALUKA PANCHAYAT, SEDAM
DIST. KALABURAGI - 585 222
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. MAYA T. R., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI PRASHANT S. KUMMAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R5;
SRI KRUPA SAGAR PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
R4, R6 TO R8 ARE SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE
APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE, PASSED IN W.P.NOS.201118-201124/2014 DATED
19.03.2019 SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE APPELLANTS, AND
ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AS PRAYED FOR, IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE.
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9261-DB
WA No.200141 of 2019
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
R.DEVDAS J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
Learned Senior Counsel Sri P. Vilas Kumar appearing
on behalf of the appellants submits that the learned Single
Judge has not taken into consideration the directions
issued by this Court in W.A.Nos.200592-93/2014 dated
21.11.2016. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the
appeal was filed by the appellants herein and therefore
this Court noticed that the learned Single Judge had not
taken note of the submissions made on behalf of the
respondent Nos.2 to 8 that the petitioners were
discontinued from service from April, 2013 which could not
have been done since their services were engaged as
against the post which were existing in the Panchayath
and therefore, they were continued ever since the year
2007. Noticing all these aspects, this Court had set aside
the orders passed by the learned Single Judge while
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9261-DB
restoring the writ petition insofar as the appellants herein
while requesting the learned Single Judge to consider the
rival contentions and dispose of the writ petition in
accordance with law. However, the learned Single Judge
has not adverted to any of the observations made by this
Court. On the other hand, the writ petition is once again
dismissed only on the ground that while seeking writ of
mandamus, one must have statutory right read with the
demand before the competent authority. The decision in
the case of Mani Subrat Jain and Ors. Vs. State of
Haryana and Ors. reported in (1977) 1 SCC 486 has
been taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge.
2. Having regard to the directions issued by this
Court earlier and the fact that the learned Single Judge
has not adverted to any of the observations made by this
Court and the factual aspects having not been taken into
consideration, we are of the considered opinion that the
impugned order cannot be sustained.
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9261-DB
3. Consequently, the writ appeal is allowed while
remanding the matter back to the learned Single Judge
once again with a request to consider the observations
made by this Court in its order dated 21.11.2016 in
W.A.Nos.200592-93/2014.
4. It is made clear that the writ petition in
W.P.Nos.201118-201124/2014 is remanded only in
respect of the appellants herein and therefore even if the
entire file is placed before the learned Single Judge, the
learned Single Judge shall consider the case only in
respect of the appellants herein.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
BL
Ct:vk
