IQI \ v. C ):i EVil V l’ ‘ r\
Judgment
th SRI M\I LiK\RJL\ C. HASARLIWD AD\ FORE 2. Ri R5 S R Li R I & F 4 SER\ ED) RESPONDENTS TI-il’, 4211t1211 sti’o In H4 4 u’U r 4I’’I]Cdr tfl2 (t4it)1Lti — Scn 1JI\ 2 U )U Ii Li Z \rru It’ SLh ‘1u_I 227 c2 r e Cl ‘2 ( U fl1’ Cit 1 i ‘a 1 i i I ( !jl ) f1 J•’- iitItiim 1 1€ I Li n’ )) $ ‘‘ I ii ‘ .2)0 1 jì’I r . ‘ a’ ii - , I I “C’ n-j’ ‘‘ 1. I ‘ Cur i r t p ‘ ‘ I ‘121 ) ‘p • at-’ -ii 5 .Lr’ a ‘I’ I I ‘1 ‘i I , CL 13 CL I ‘.4, 21’— 1’. ‘‘‘ I I -3- ORDER Petitioner, who is working as Bill Collector in 3M/61h respondents office has come up in this writ petition, seeking direction to consider his prayer for promotion.
The materials available on record discloses that earlier similar writ petition was filed by the petitioner herein in W.P.No.47551/2002 (S-RES) which came to be disposed off on 28.02.2008, with the following direction to respondents: ‘4. Sri.K.P.Somashekaraiah, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that now the petitioner has completed more than 10 years of service as Bill Collector and therefore, the name of the petitioner may be included in the Seniority List. He further submits that the petitioner has passed the examination like Accounts Higher and Community Development Part-I. If that is so, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to give a respondents requesting to include his name in the representation 1 prestilt Senionty I bt ha Iurtlivr prinotioii If represent ation sm h 1% sziveil. respondents shall 1oiisider cii I mc lth 1ai tlu sanit .L 1’hc rralter, in the ieprnt lit 111011 (.11 IW%lilh. Jflti %IlillllitWd It’ respniuit n” th’r’ ‘ ui error ii: jj’it tPefltIuiiiIiis t1it (lirertion icsuecl b’s tj Court in the akirnald writ prtitiun. In that icn of the matter. respondt-nic ha e not takcn the represt i it€ition ol petitioner sn Iously. i tick has rtsult ed ifilug of this second wiil Petil ‘on In the 11’411t ol fit din 1 mi3 already beini, isi ed in hit— triter v. ,tuirl ‘I “‘v Pt JIIC)1, 1 P• Iii ii.P \o. 1, 3-i I /20o2 hlIIL-’ti’’1i “ %s’mit it’t tio’j Jo’ ir s’ UP’) huh’ S fl4Jf ii-i•,t iii”’” t 1 j:,, .‘‘tr’ed I’ jt’tit’eii’1 hr ‘rj t’ lj’_y: . ih.- it.’” • ,‘j P i’d’ i11 lii — till It 11(111 I%%J,’gI n Tiji “t:” i :‘ ). 7j5jI ,‘‘s ‘ ‘in ri, 01 L t .c’T. — _Z,•fl •,. ‘ is ‘fl( t Ilir %aL’4 .hs’ r tel’ S I ‘ ‘I I a C’S I LIiVS11. and wIie,i surtt represental inn i made h5 the peutlonc r. th same shall lx disposed oil by th fl’sj)oncleiit S r accoidanc° cliii law t t carl’c t juDGE
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.