(1.) THE petitioner, assailing the correctness of the order dated 14/06/2012 passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore, in Application No. 2189/2012 vide Annexure -A has presented this petition. Further, petitioner has sought to direct the respondents to consider his application vide Annexure -A3 dated 25/11/2011 a/w medical certificate dated 23/11/2011 vide Annexure -A2 and also the medical certificate dated 28/03/2012 vide Annexure -A11 (Annexure -B in application No. 2189/2012 before the Tribunal) irrespective of his retirement. The petitioner -applicant has filed an application before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, in No. 2189/2012 seeking a direction to the respondents to consider his representation dated 25.11.2011, contending that he was the Principal of Government Pre -University College, Kamasamudra, Bangarpet Taluk. He submitted his representation/application on 25.11.2011 praying for voluntary retirement on medical grounds on the ground that the Medical Board had certified that he was suffering from permanent disability of weakness of right side of the body, speech and memory and that he was not fit to continue the work in Government office. But the said representation of the petitioner -applicant has not been considered by the respondents. Before the Tribunal, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the applicant has already retired on 30.4.2012 and therefore, the prayer sought in the said application has become infructuous. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner -applicant submitted that, the representation of the petitioner dated 25.11 2011 has been ignored and the matter was unnecessarily postponed, thereby he was deprived of the benefit of voluntary retirement on medical ground which he could have taken earlier to 30.4.2012 and consequently, the other benefits are also denied to him. The Tribunal, after hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on file, has dismissed the said application as having become infructuous in view of the retirement of the applicant. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has presented this petition seeking appropriate reliefs as stated supra.
(2.) WE have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, gone through the grounds urged by the petitioner and perused the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, we do not find any error or illegality, much less material irregularity as such committed by the Tribunal in dismissing the said application. The relief sought by the petitioner -applicant before the Tribunal is to direct the respondents to consider his representation dated 25.11.2011 and during the pendency of the said representation, he retired on attaining superannuation and therefore, the question of considering the said representation/application does not arise. The reasoning given by the Tribunal is well considered and well founded one and therefore, interference by this Court is not called for. Nor we find any grounds as such made out by the petitioner to entertain the relief sought in this petition. Hence, we decline to entertain the relief sought by the petitioner in this petition. Therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed as devoid of merits. However, it is needless to clarify that, still if the petitioner has got any/grievance, it is open for him to redress his grievance before the respondents if so advised or if need arises. Ordered accordingly.