SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 44168

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
SRI S KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent


ORDER

1. The petitioners are all serving employees of the Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (“the BBMP”).

2. For the sake of convenience, the initial appointment of the petitioners and the promotions that they have secured in their career are stated as under:

a. WP 14885/2020: SDA to FDA to Manager b. WP 12052/2021:

i. SDA to RI to Assessor ii. TI to RI to Assessor iii. D grp to 1st grade RI to Assessor iv. TI to 1st grade RI to Assessor WP No. 12052 of 2021 WP No. 20348 of 2022 WP No. 21093 of 2022 v. TI to RI to Ist Grade RI vi. TI to RI to Assessor c. WP 2345/2021:

i. RI to Assessor ii. FDA to Assessor d. WP 20348/2022: Helper to SDA to Assessor to ARO (Independent charge under R 32)

e. WP 21093 2022: SDA to RI Grade I to Assessor

3. The petitioners herein were, admittedly, appointed under the City of Bangalore Municipal Corporation Services (General) Cadre and Recruitment Regulations, 1971. (for short, “the 1971 Regulations”) read with the Karnataka City Corporation Employees (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1991 (for short, “the 1991 Rules”).

WP No. 12052 of 2021 WP No. 20348 of 2022 WP No. 21093 of 2022

4. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are holding the aforementioned posts

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top