Smt Chaya vs State Of Karnataka
2023 Latest Caselaw 2750 Kant

                                                 -1-
                                                            WA No. 411 of 2023




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                                DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 2023

                                              PRESENT
                       THE HON'BLE MR. PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                                 AND
                               THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
                                 WRIT APPEAL NO. 411 OF 2023 (S-RES)
                      BETWEEN:

                      1.   SMT. CHAYA
                           AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
                           W/O LATE BYRAPPA T
                           WORKING AS DISTRICT
                           PROGRAMME MANAGER
                           OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT HEALTH
                           & FAMILY WELFARE
                           RAMANAGAR DISTRICT
                           RAMANAGARA-562 179
                                                                 ...APPELLANT

                      (BY SRI S RAJESH, ADVOCATE FOR
                       SRI MUKKANNAPPA S B, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
VASANTHAKUMARY        AND:
BK
Location: HIGH
COURT OF              1.   STATE OF KARNATAKA
KARNATAKA
                           REPRESENTED BY ITS
                           PRL. SECRETARY
                           DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
                           FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES
                           VIKASA SOUDHA
                           DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
                           BANGALORE-560 001

                      2.   THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                           ZILLA PANCHAYATH
                            -2-
                                     WA No. 411 of 2023




     RAMANAGAR DISTRICT
     THE PRESIDENT/
     DISTRICT HEALTH SOCIETY OF
     RAMANAGAR DISTRICT-481 201

3.   THE MEMBER SECRETARY
     KARNATAKA STATE HEALTH
     AND FAMILY WELFARE SOCIETY
     (UNIT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY
     WELFARE DEPARTMENT)
     ANANDA RAO CIRCLE
     BANGALORE-560 009

4.   THE MISSION DIRECTOR
     NATIONAL HEALTH MISSION
     KARNATAKA STATE HEALTH AND
     FAMILY WELFARE SOCIETY
     1ST FLOOR, NEW BUILDING
     DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH AND
     FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES
     ANANDA RAO CIRCLE
     BANGALORE-560 009

5.   THE DISTRICT HEALTH AND FAMILY
     WELFARE OFFICER
     RAMANAGAR DISTRICT/VICE PRESIDENT
     DISTRICT HEALTH SOCIETY
     RAMANAGAR DISTRICT
     RAMANAGAR-562 179

6.   THE MEMBER SECRETARY
     DISTRICT HEALTH SOCIETY
     RAMANAGAR DISTRICT
     RAMANAGARA-562 179

7.   SRI NAGESH R D
     AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
     S/O PARAMESHWARAPPA R D
                                 -3-
                                             WA No. 411 of 2023




    NO.143, 4TH CROSS
    RAVINDRANAGAR
    SHIVAMOGA-577 201
                                                  ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI S S MAHENDRA, AGA FOR R-1 & 3 TO 6)

      THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
18.01.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT
PETITION NO.1829/2019 INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO THE
DIRECTION TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO REINSTATE THE 7TH
RESPONDENT SUBJECT TO ACCOMMODATION OF THE
APPELLANT.

     THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                            JUDGMENT

1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

2. I.A.No.1/2023 is filed seeking condonation of delay of 48 days in

filing the writ appeal. For the reasons stated in the affidavit

accompanying the application, the delay is condoned. Accordingly,

I.A.No.1/2023 is allowed.

3. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 18.01.2023

passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.1829/2019 insofar

as it relates to the direction to respondent No.5 to reinstate

respondent No.7 subject to accommodating the appellant.

WA No. 411 of 2023

4. At the very outset, we are constrained to say that this appeal is

nothing but an exercise on 'presumptions and assumptions' or 'ifs

and buts'. Respondent No.7 filed the above writ petition against an

order of dismissal from service dated 26.12.2018. The learned

Single Judge found that the order of dismissal was unsustainable

and as such, quashed the same. While doing so, the learned

Single Judge has directed respondent No.5 to reinstate respondent

No.7 subject to accommodating the appellant, if necessary, but the

concerned was reserved liberty to initiate enquiry into the

allegations against respondent No.7 in accordance with the

applicable Rules (emphasis supplied by us)." This observation

made by the learned Single Judge makes it very clear that the

reinstatement of respondent No.7 will be subject to accommodating

the appellant and thereby, the interest of the appellant is duly

protected. Any action initiated by respondent No.5 without

accommodating the appellant would amount to deviation or non-

compliance of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. It is

not the case of the appellant that such an exercise is undertaken

by respondent No.5. The only grievance raised in the

memorandum of appeal particularly, in ground No.5, is that by

virtue of the impugned order, there is every likelihood of removing

WA No. 411 of 2023

the appellant from service without accommodating her as observed

in the impugned order and the reasoning given by the learned

Single Judge for making such an observation is erroneous,

arbitrary and unsustainable in the eye of law. In our opinion, this

particular ground taken by the appellant is totally contrary to the

order passed by the learned Single Judge. The apprehension of

the appellant that there is likelihood of removing her from service is

nothing but assumptions and presumptions. The appeal is devoid

of any merits and is liable to be dismissed.

5. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.

6. In view of dismissal of the writ appeal, the pending

interlocutory application does not survive for consideration and is

accordingly disposed of.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

BKV