Karnataka High Court
Chambanna S/O Veerabhadrappa Mudakavi vs The General Manager on 22 February, 2024
Author: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4396
WP No. 148061 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 148061 OF 2020 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
CHAMBANNA S/O VEERABHADRAPPA MUDAKAVI,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HC IN RPF CRIME
CELL DSC OFFICE, SWR HUBBALLI DIVISION,
HUBBALLI, R/O: H.NO.97, 3RD CROSS,
SRINAGAR UNKAL, HUBBALLI-580031.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. V.M. SHEELVANT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE GENERAL MANAGER,
SOUTH WESTARN RAILWAYS,
GM OFFICE, GADAG ROAD, HUBBALLI-580031.
2. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER,
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAYS, GM OFFICE,
GADAG ROAD, HUBBALLI-580031.
3. RAILWAY BOARD THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN,
& CEO RAILWAY BOARD, RAIL BHAVAN,
NEW DELHI-110001.
4. DY. DIRECTOR-II/E(NG),
Digitally
signed by
RAILWAY BOARD, RAIL BHAVAN,
MANJANNA
MANJANNA E
E Date:
NEW DELHI-110001.
2024.02.23
16:19:40
+0530
5. INSPECTOR GENERAL CUM
CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER,
RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE,
GM OFFICE, GADAG ROAD,
HUBBALLI-580020.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHIVARAJ C. BELLAKKI, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE
OF CERTIORARI OF ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION
AND QUASH THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 DATED
16.03.2020 BEARING NO.SWR/P.608/Law Assistant/Vol.IV, PRODUCTED AT
ANNEXURE-C IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER CONCERNED AND ETC.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4396
WP No. 148061 of 2020
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B'
GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The prayer made in the writ petition was to
quash the notification dated 16.03.2020 by which the
selection to the post of Chief Law Assistants had been
called for. Pursuant to an interim order, the petitioner was
permitted to take up the examination.
2. On the last occasion, the respondents were
directed to state as to whether the petitioner had passed
in the examination so as to consider the claim of the
petitioner on merits.
3. A memo is filed stating that the petitioner had
not passed the examination.
4. In view of the above, the challenge to the
notification would be academic. The petition is therefore
dismissed as having become unnecessary.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however,
submits that the petitioner would be entitled for promotion
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4396
in the light of the judgment rendered by the Supreme
Court in Civil Appeal No.3592/2019.
6. In my view, it would be appropriate for the
petitioner to make a representation highlighting his
grievances, including his right to be considered for
promotion in accordance with the above mentioned
judgment.
7. If such a representation is made, the same shall
be considered and an appropriate speaking order be
passed by the first respondent or any of his delegate
authority within a period of two months from the date of
the receipt of copy of the order.
Sd/-
JUDGE
EM & VB/CT:BCK
