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

SRI. MANJUNATH B. LAMANI – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WP 8338/2021



1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

WRIT PETITION No.8338/2021 (S-RES)

BETWEEN:

1.

SRI. MANJUNATH B LAMANI

S/O BHAV SINGH

AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

RESIDING NO.2, 3RD FLOOR,

2ND BLDG, NEAR GOVT HIGH SCHOOL

S.R NAGAR, NEAR OLD PALLAVI THEATER,

BENGALURU 3 560 027.

2.

SRI. MAHESH KUMAR S,

S/O SRINIVAS M,

AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,

RESIDING AT NO.1757,

VIDYANAGARA

SARJAPURA, ANEKAL TALUK,

BENGALURU 3 562 125.

3.

SRI. BASAVARAJ BHUSHANNAVAR,

S/O SIDDAGOUDA,

AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.49,

SHANTISAGAR GALLI,

TALUK KANABARGI,

BELAGAVI 3 590 016.

2

4.

SRI. MADHUKAR B DESAI,

S/O BALVANT DESAI,

AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

RESIDING AT NO.594/A

DESAI GALLI, @ POST KAKATI,

BELAGAVI DISTRICT 3 591 113.

5.

SRI. HANAMNTH K SARVI,

S/O KEMPANNA,

AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

RESIDING AT NO. 735,

LBS NAGAR, KANAKAGIRI B.K.,

BELAGAVI TALUK & DISTRICT.

6.

SMT. SHILPA PATIL,

W/O SIDHARTH,

AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,

RESIDING AT NO.360,

BRAHANLING GALLI (ASTE),

CHANDGAD, KHAGAR POST,

BELGAVI TALUK,

BELGAVI 3 590 016.

7.

SRI. RAHUL Y SAWANT,

S/O YALLAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,

RESIDING AT NO.149/2B,

NINGAPUR GALLI,

KHANAPUR TALUK,

BELAGAVI DISTRICT 3 591 302.

8.

SRI. STEVEN SWAGATH KUMAR,

S/O SANJAY KUMAR H.,

NO. 1-12/16-A, AIWAN SHAHI,

NEAR VIJAYA VIDYAL SCHOOL,

GOLLABOWDI, KALBURGI DISTRICT,

KALBURGI 3 585 102.

3

9.

SRI. VINAY KUMAR R,

S/O RAJU,

AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

RESIDING AT NO.108,

CHOULTRY STREET 1ST CROSS,

BENKI COLONY KADUR TALUK

CHIKAMAGALURU DISTRICT 3 577 548.

10.

SRI. SURESH LOKAPUR,

S/O SANNAPAASHURAM,

AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,

RESIDING AT SECTOR NO.40,

PLOT NO.100/A, NAVANAGAR,

BAGALKOT 3 597 103.

... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI.CHANDRAKANTH. R. GOULAY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,

REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL

CHIEF SECRETARY,

DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH EMPOWERMENT

AND SPORTS, M.S BUILDING,

BENGALURU 3 560 001.

2.

THE COMMISSIONER,

DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH EMPOWERMENT

AND SPORTS, YAVANIKA,

NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,

BENGALURU 3 560 001.

3.

SPORTS AUTHORITY OF KARNATAKA,

RERESTENTED BY DEPUTY DIRECTOR,

YAVANUKA,

4

NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,

BENGALURU 3 560 001.

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT.M.C. NAGASHREE, AGA FOR R-1 AND R-2;

R3 SERVED)

THIS PETION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19 OF

THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT 1985 PRAYING

TO ISSUE WRIT TO CONSIDER THE CASE OF THE

PETITIONERS

FOR

CONTINUATION

OF

THEIR

APPOINTMENT/EMPLOYMENT AS FITNESS TRAINEES

IN

THE

RESPONDENT-ORGANIZATION

AND

AS

BEFORE AND TO PASS APPROPRIATE SUITABLE

ORDER AND ETC.,

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS

THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Heard Sri. Chandrakanth R. Goulay, learned

counsel for petitioners and Smt. M. C. Nagashree,

learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

2.

Petitioners who are working as fitness

trainees in the respondent No.3 3 Sports Authority of

Karnataka are before this Court seeking for a direction

by issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus to

5

consider their representations, which is for continuation

of their employment as fitness coach, as is done in the

case of Coach and Junior Coach who are working in the

respondent No.3 3 Authority.

3.

The

petitioners

claim

that

they

were

appointed as fitness trainees in accordance with law for

a period of one year and were continued from time to

time. It transpires with the services of the petitioners

were not continued from September 2020 but a decision

was taken with regard to both Coach and Junior Coach

to continue their services by proceedings dated

18.08.2020 which resulted in an order for continuation

of Coach and Junior Coach.

4.

The

petitioners

claim

that

they

have

submitted

representations

to

the

respondents

to

consider their case in accordance with law as is done in

the case of Coach and Junior Coach. Since those

representations have not ye

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 Back to top