PROFULCHANDRA Vs. PRESIDENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred this writ petition with a prayer to quash the order dtd. 26/2/2009 passed by the Principal District Judge, Raichur, in EAT No.2/2005 vide Annexure-C.

(2.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Counsel for respondent nos.1 & 3.

(3.) Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are, petitioner claims to be working as a Lab Assistant with respondent no.3-Institution run by respondent nos.1 & 2 eversince the year 1992. It is his case that in the year 2003, he was not well and though he had made necessary application seeking leave, the respondents had not considered the same and after he recovered from illness, though he requested them to take him back for duty, they have not allowed him to join his duty. It is under these circumstances, petitioner had approached the Education Appellate Tribunal invoking its jurisdiction under Sec. 94 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 (for short, 'the Act'). In the said proceedings which was numbered as EAT No.2/2005, after service of notice, the respondents had appeared and filed their objections. The Tribunal on the basis of the rival pleadings had framed the following issues and additional issue.