KARNATAKA RAJYAPRAVASI MITRARA KSHEMAABHIVRUDHI ASSOCIATION (R) v. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
2017-02-03
ASHOK B.HINCHIGERI
body2017
DigiLaw.ai
ORDER : Sri. E.S. Indiresh, the learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for the respondent Nos.1 to 3, 5 to 15. Sri. M.I. Arun, the learned counsel is directed to take notice for the respondent No.4. 2. The issues raised in these petitions are akin to the ones raised in W.P.Nos.4527–4646 OF 2017 (S-RES), disposed of on 2.2.2017. 3. These petitions are also disposed of in terms of the order, dated 2.2.2017 as follows: (i) Prayers (a) and (b) are not at all grantable as no recruitment advertisement/notification is issued calling for the applications from the petitioners, no merit test is conducted and no reservation requirements are adhered to. Therefore it cannot be held that the present arrangement is in keeping with the scheme of public appointments as envisaged in the Constitution of India. Therefore no direction can be given to the respondents to continue the services of the petitioners. No direction can be given to revise their pay-scales or give security of tenure to the Home Guards. (ii) The petitioners do not have any vested right to demand that they be continued to work in the Pravasi Mitra Scheme of the Tourism Department. Whether the work in the Tourism Department is to be given only to the petitioners or to the other Home Guards is also a policy-decision, which the concerned decision-makers have to take. (iii) I do not see the infringement of any rights of the petitioners warranting the issuance of the writ of mandamus. These writ petitions are therefore liable to be dismissed and accordingly they are dismissed. However, the dismissal of these writ petitions does not mean that their services are not to be continued in Pravasi Mitra Scheme of the Tourism Department. The concerned authorities have to take informed decision by taking into account the requirements of the Tourism Department, the suitability of the Home Guards for the project in question, the availability of other suitable Home Guards for the said Scheme, the need to have the second line of Home Guards for the said Scheme and all other relevant factors. If the serving Home Guards for the said Scheme are to be replaced, they have to be given reasonable time to shift their houses. 4. No order as to costs.