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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 38909

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
ASHOK S.KINAGI
SRI. N G ISHWAR REDDY – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WP 15691/2020



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 15691 OF 2020 (S-RES)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI. N G ISHWAR REDDY S/O GOVINDREDDY, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCU: BEE KEEPING ASSISTANT SRINIVASAPUR TQ DIST. KOLAR - 563 131

2. SRI V NARAYANASWAMY S/O VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCU: BEE KEEPING ASSISTANT, MULABAGIL Digit ally TALUK AND DISTRICT KOLAR - 563 131 signed by SUNITHA K S Location: 3. SRI N M KRISHNAPPA HIGH COURT S/O MENASAPPA OF AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, KARNATAKA OCCU: BEE KEEPING ASSISTANT KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT KOLAR - 563 131 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. I.R. BIRADAR., ADV.)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY, DEPT. OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001

2. DIRECTOR OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES KHANIJI BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001

3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYAT CHAGALAPUR CHIKKABALLAPUR - 570 051

4. DEPUTY DIRECTOR (KVI)

ZILLA PANCHAYAT, D.I.C.BUILDING OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER COMPOUND, KOLAR - 563 101

5. DIRECTOR OF HORTICULTURE LALBHAG, BENGALURU - 560 011

6. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HORTICULTURE KOLAR - 563 121 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.J.ESWARAPPA, AGA FOR R1, R2 & R5;

R4 SERVED)

THIS WP FILED PRAYING TO DIRECTING RESPONDENTS TO SHIFT THE RESPECTIVE POSTS OF THE PETITIONERS TO THE HORTICULTURE DEPARTMENT AS PER THE ORDER OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT DT.09.04.2012 ANNEXURE-D AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR 'PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP', THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to shift the respective posts of the petitioners to the Horticulture Department as per the order of the State Government dated 09.04.2012 vide Annexure D and also sought for a mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representations dated 04.02.2014 and 09.06.2014 vide Annexures-H2 & H3 and the legal notice dated 14.07.2017 vide Annexure-J.

2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this writ petition are as follows:

The petitioners were appointed as a Bee Keeping Assistants by respondent No.2 and have put in more than 14 years of continuous service. Respondent No.4 sought necessary sanction from the Zilla Panchayat to continue the Bee Keeping Assistants. Respondent No.3 directed the Zilla Panchayat till 1999-2000. Even after the expiry, the petitioners have been continued in service. Respondent No.3 continued all the action plans of Zilla Panchayath till 1999-2000. Respondent No.1 decided to shift the respective posts of Bee Keeping Assistants from the office of respondent No.2 to Horticulture Department vide notification dated 09.04.2012. Similarly placed petitioners approached this Court in W.P.Nos.38332-38334/2012. This Court, vide order dated 21.09.2012 allowed the writ petitions by placing reliance on the order dated 23.08.2012 of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.28729 to 28731 of 2012 and quashed Annexure- G dated 18/23.08.2011 issued by respondent No.5 and Annexure-K dated 30.07.2012 issued by respondent No.2 therein and directed respondent No.2 to take into consideration the case of the petitioners and if the petitioners are also on par with the similarly placed other employees, their grievance may be considered. After the disposal of the said writ petitions, the petitioners submitted a representation to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in terms of the order passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petitions. The respondents did not consider the representation. Hence, this writ petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that similarly placed petitioners filed the writ petitions in W.P.Nos.38332-38334 of 2012. This Court, vide order dated 21.09.2012 allowed the wri

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top