Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 929 (KAR)

K. Prahlad Achari v. State of Karnataka

2015-08-14

K.N.PHANEENDRA

body2015
ORDER : K.N. Phaneendra, J. In these writ petitions the petitioners have sought for a prayer for: (i) issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari and quash the impugned endorsement dated 25-8-2012 bearing No. KaViHam/Kusa/17(9-10)/2012-13/50 issued by respondent 3 vide Annexure-A; (ii) issue writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation submitted by the petitioners dated 8-6-2012 and give effect of promotion to the next higher cadre of the Junior Assistants/Assistants from the date they were posted to work as Junior Assistants/Assistants, i.e., 13-6-2003, and to grant all consequential benefits vide Annexure-W and (iii) issue writ of mandamus, direction or declaration or pass such other orders, as the Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case, to meet the interest of justice and equity. 2. It is contended before this Court by the petitioners Counsel that in view of the promotions given to the petitioners as prayed by them to the post of Junior Assistants from the post of 'D' Group employees, the first prayer sought in the writ petition does not survive for consideration. However, it is contended by the learned Counsel that, instead of giving promotion and all the consequential benefits from 13-6-2003 the promotions were given from 22-1-2015 as per Annexure-XI. Therefore, the respondents may be directed to consider the prayer of the petitioners as to whether they are entitled for promotions and consequential benefits from 13-6-2003 in spite of their repeated requests and demands/ their applications are not considered. 3. Learned Counsel for the respondents countering the above said arguments submitted that the application filed by the petitioners is at page 70, dated 8-6-2012. In the said application they have not stated any specific date from which they are entitled for promotion and for consequential relief in order to consider the same in accordance with law. However, it is incumbent upon the respondents to find out whether the petitioners are entitled to promotion from 13-6-2003 and also for consequential benefits thereof though application is not sound enough to comprise the above said prayer. Even otherwise, the petitioners have already filed another representation which is filed along with I.A. No. 1 of 2015 wherein the petitioners have sought for a direction to consider their representation afresh. In view of the above said factual matrix, the writ petitions do not survive for consideration so far as the first prayer is concerned. Even otherwise, the petitioners have already filed another representation which is filed along with I.A. No. 1 of 2015 wherein the petitioners have sought for a direction to consider their representation afresh. In view of the above said factual matrix, the writ petitions do not survive for consideration so far as the first prayer is concerned. However, the following directions are issued to the respondents: That the respondents have to consider the fresh application filed by them on 22-1-2015, 6-4-2015, 15-5-2015 and on 3-6-2015 and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law considering their representations as to whether they are entitle for promotions from 13-6-2003 and for consequential benefits. The respondents to complete the process within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With these observations, the above writ petitions are disposed of.