R. ADILAKSHMI D/O LATE B.R. RUDRASHETTY Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT EDUCATION DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDINGS SACHIVALAYA-II BANGALORE - 560001, THE BANGALORE UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR JNANA BHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER and 3rd respondent were appointed as Library Assistants in the Bangalore University on 30.10.1992. 4th respondent was appointed as Library Assistant in the University on 19.02.1992. Syndicate of the University passed a resolution on 10.11.1993, to promote all officials, who have put in a minimum of 10 years of service. On 06.06.1994, the 3rd and 4th respondent were appointed as Assistant Librarians Grade -I on temporary basis. Petitioner was promoted as Assistant Librarian Grade -I on 25.08.1994, in terms of a resolution dated 10.11.1993 of the University, by creating supernumerary post. The Government on 28.06.1997, annulled the said resolution dated 10.11.1993 and appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Librarian on 25.08.1994 was cancelled. The said order when questioned in a writ petition was held as arbitrary and illegal. Accepting the explanation of the petitioner to the show cause notice, the Syndicate passed a resolution on 31.12.1999, to reconsider the order of annulment. In the Syndicate meeting dated 20.09.2005, a decision was taken to request the first respondent to reconsider the order of annulment dated 28.06.1997, relating to the appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Librarian Grade I. University framed Statute on 26.01.2007, regularizing the service of 3rd and 4th respondents, from the date they were appointed on temporary basis i.e., 06.06.1994. By another Statute, on 26.01.2007, the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Librarian Grade I was considered from the date of her promotion i.e., 31.01.2007. The first respondent approved the said Statutes on 08.12.2008.

(2.) FEELING aggrieved, petitioner submitted representations to the respondents to consider her claim from the date the 3rd and 4th respondents services was regularised. Claim having been rejected on 23.05.2009, this writ petition was filed.

(3.) KEEPING in view the said course of action of the 1st respondent, Sri. B.B. Bajentri, learned Advocate, submitted that the University may be directed to take note of the communication of the Government dated 05.09.2012 and take expeditious decision in the matter. Keeping in view the communication of the first respondent dated 05.09.2012, placed on record with the memo by the learned HCGP, in my opinion, it is unnecessary to decide this writ petition on its merit. Since the first respondent has directed the second respondent to consider the grievance of the petitioner, there is an obligation on the part of the second respondent to consider the grievance. If the decision of the second respondent, for any reason is adverse to the interest of the petitioner, she can seek redressal of the grievance in accordance with law, even at a later date. In the result, writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to take note of the communication of the first respondent dated 05.09.2012 and take decision with regard to the grievance of the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date a copy of this order becomes available to the second respondent. The decision taken be communicated to the first respondent and the petitioner, without any loss of time. Contentions of the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 are kept open for consideration, if a need arises in future.