DHAKSHAYINI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Accordingly, petitions are disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
Judgment
S/O.HONNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT MOLLENAHALLY, ALAGUD POST, ARAKERE HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 401
5. SHANTHALA C D/O.CHALLA KONDAIAH, WP Nos.36143-54/12 2 AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT NO.3 RD CROSS, BHOVI COLONY, NEHARU NAGARA, MANDYA CITY – 571 401
6. KUSHNIGAR D/O.M G AHMAD PHASHA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT NO.1223, 6TH MAIN, SHATHAGALLY EXTENSION, NEAR RAJKUMAR ROAD, MYSORE CITY – 571 401
7. NAGARAJA C D S/O. DODDANNA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT CHANDAGIRI KOPPAL, BALLENAHALLY POST, K SETTYHALLY HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 401
8. LOKESHA G R, S/O RAJU G K, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT GOOLUR VILLAGE (POST), KOPPA OBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 401
9. PUTTASWAMY B P S/O.BOMMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT PANNE DODDI, BESAGARAHALLY, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 401
10. GOVINDA C S/O CHIKKANNA SETTY, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT KOKKARE BELLURU(POST), MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 401
11. CHAVITHRA H S D/O.SHIVANNA, WP Nos.36143-54/12 3 … PETITIONERS AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT NO.2/1, OFFICIAL QUARTERS, BANNUR ROAD, NEAR KANNIKA PARAMESHWARI TEMPLE, MANDYA CITY 571 401
12. G S BHAVYA D/O.G. N SATHISH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT 8TH CROSS, V V NAGARA, BEHIND APMC YARD, KALLAHHALY, MANDYA CITY - 571 401 (BY SRI. SRIDHAR C K, ADV.) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, M S BUILDING, B R AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. BY ITS SECRETARY
STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, M S BUILDING, B R AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. BY ITS SECRETARY.
KARNATAKA RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS SOCIETY, NO.179, 1ST MAIN ROAD, ROOPA COMPLEX, SHESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE-560020. REP BY ITS SECRETARY
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA – 571 401
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYATH, WP Nos.36143-54/12 4 MANDYA DISTIRCT. MANDYA CITY – 571 401 ...RESPONDENTS (SRI.RAGHAVENDRA G.GAYATRI, HCGP FOR R1, R2 AND R4 SRI.M.N.MADHUSUDHAN, ADV. FOR R3) --- These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the circular dated 11.4.2012 issued by the 3rd respondent vide Annexure-D and notification dated 15.3.2011 vide Annexure-G and etc. These Petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the Court made the following:-
O R D E R Learned Government Pleader is directed to take notice for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4. Sri.M.N.Madhusudhan, learned counsel is directed to take notice for respondent No.3.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the grievance of the petitioners is covered by the decision of this Court in WP Nos.20204-20364/2011 dated 13.7.2012.
3. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader submits that the relief of reinstatement cannot be granted. This Court had only permitted for consideration of weigtage WP Nos.36143-54/12 5 for the past service rendered by the teachers in case they have made an application for fresh recruitment.
Operative part
4. As far as the reinstatement is concerned, such a relief has not been granted nor any direction is issued to the respondents in the above mentioned writ petitions. However, as far as the consideration of weightage is concerned, if these petitioners have also made application for recruitment, the recruiting authority shall consider the weightage in terms of the order passed by this Court in WP Nos.20204-20364/2011 dated 13.7.2012. Accordingly, petitions are disposed of.
5. Learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 is permitted to file memo of appearance within two weeks. Sri.M.N.Madhusudhan, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 is permitted to file vakalath within two weeks. RV Sd/- JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, petitions are disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227.
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.