BADIYA NAIK H R v. THE PRINCIPLE SECRETARY
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
In view of the above, petition is dismissed as
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. In view of the above, petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RU, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33
Judgment
2. BADIYA NAIK H R S/O LATE RAMA NAIK AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESIDING AT HASTINAPURA VILLAGE POST-SAKREPATNA DISTRICT CHIKAMAGALURU TALUK KADUR - 577 135. VINAYAKA H.T., S/O TAMMANAGOWDA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/A HALAVALLI VILLAGE POST -MALALUR TQ & DIST - CHIKKAMAGALURU PIN CODE - 577 133.
(BY SRI. S.V. DESAI.,ADVOCATE) AND:
THE PRINCIPLE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LAW GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU -560 001.
THE MEMBER SECRETARY ASST. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE 6TH FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN K G ROAD, BENGALURU -560009 Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N. HCGP.,ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENTS - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:30835 WP No. 96 of 2021 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO RE-FIX THE DATE AND HOLD THE PRELIMINARY EXAM FOR THE RECRUITMENT OF POST ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR/ASSISTANT GOVT,PLEADER RECRUITMENT AT THE EARLIEST BY CONSIDERING THE ANNEXURE-A DATED:19.10.2020. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER
1. Learned counsel for the petitioners has filed a memo dated 05.08.2024 seeking dismissal of the petition as the same having become infructuous.
2. Memo is taken on record.
Operative part
In view of the above, petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RU, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In view of the above, petition is dismissed as
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
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.