Back
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
M. NAGAPRASANNA, J
MS. AMRUTHA M. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. parties involved in the educational assistance dispute (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments regarding entitlement and financial constraints (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. court's analysis of legislative intent and statutory provisions (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. legitimate expectations and welfare rights under the law (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 5. final decision to quash the impugned notification and order compliance (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
CAV ORDER
Petitioners 1 to 5 are before this Court calling in question the Notification dated 30-10-2023 and consequently to allow the application dated 13-08-2021 of 2021 Notification to few of the petitioners and have also sought several other incidental prayers.
2. Before embarking upon consideration of the issue on its merits, I deem it appropriate to notice the protagonists in the petition. The 1st petitioner is the daughter of the 2nd petitioner who is a registered construction worker and the 3rd petitioner is the daughter of the 4th petitioner, again a registered construction worker. The 5th petitioner is the Karnataka State Building and other Workers Federation (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Federatio
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
