Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Accordingly the writ petition is hereby disposed of
Provisions considered
Judgment
Sri PRAKASH 5/0 LANE KARIYAPPA AGED 47 YEARS LECTURER [N JKANNADA SBRR MAHAJANA PU COLLEGE JAYALAKSHMIPURAM MYSORE. Lv Sri L.SRINI VAST BARL, :\DVj AND: \.TE OE KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SPCERT...ARY TO EDUCATION p)j:pApTp\J (F1IGJrTER .LDL.:xtI’j N S BUILUINE Dr AMEEJDK.A.Ji WJA.U BANGAI ORE - 560 001.
TIlE COMAI1SSIONLR COLLLCUV1T; LDLT:AT1OIN PALACE ROAD, PANDA]. ORE. - 960 001 /1 T iHE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGI.ATE EDUCATION PALACE ROAFL B\NG.ALORE 560 001 T THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDLCATT.ON JLB ROAD, MYSORE REGION, fSQRE
THE DIRECTOR PRE ERSIT1ELUCATION DEPT. 18’ CROSS.M1AILESWAIO\M BANGALORE — 560 003.
Sri NIA.HAJANA EDUCATION SOCIETYT JAYALAKHMIPLRAM, MYSORE 70 012. REPPE1 TT) W1 iTS SECPT y RESPONDENTS (By Sri RAGE AVENDRA G. GAYATH RI. HOG P FOR R 1 TO 5 \1/;S SNMURIH/Y ASSOCIATES ADT 5: FUR R6) THIS WRIT PETITION FILED U/A 22$ & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRT_YER TO DIRECT THE THE TO CONSIDER THE RESPONDENTS CASE OF I S ( L 3 ORDER On 7.8.1994 petitioner was appointed as Lecturer Kannada on temporary basis in the 6* respondent college. On
16.2.2004 per Annexure-C, 6th respondent college recommended the case of petitioner for approval and to admit him for grant-in-aid. Since the respondent Government failed to consider the proposal sent by the 6t respondents petitioner is before this court for a writ of mandamus.
Operative part
2. Respondent Government in their statement of objections contend that petitioner was not appointed on regular basis, in accordance with law and against a vacancy. Respondent Government to seek necessary information from the 6nJt respondent College in this connection and by taking into consideration the length of service rendered by the petitioner his claim for approval and grant-in-aid is to be considered in accordance with law. Accordingly the writ petition is hereby disposed of directing the respondent Government to consider the a, 4 proposal sent by the 6” respondent for approval of appointment of petitioner as expeditiously as possible and in any event not later than three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Accordingly the writ petition is hereby disposed of. 3d!- JUDGE DKB
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly the writ petition is hereby disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.