ANNAPURNA UPPIN Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, petitioner has assailed the Notification dtd. 25/8/2018 issued by the second respondent, inviting applications for the post of Training Co-ordinators (HRD).

(2.) Petitioner claims to be appointed as State Training Co-ordinator (HRD) in the office of respondent No. 3, after participation in the interview on 5/4/2010. It is further stated that the petitioner has executed undertaking before respondent No. 3 and her appointment is against permanent vacancy and the same is essential insofar as sanitation and cleanliness programme and project launched by the respondent-authorities. The respondent-authorities continued the services of the petitioner as a temporary employee instead of appointing her as permanent employee. In the meanwhile, petitioner requested the respondent-authorities for regularization of her services. However, the respondent-authorities have issued notification dtd. 25/8/2018 (Annexure-A) inviting applications from the eligible candidates for various posts including Training Co-ordinators. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has presented this writ petition.

(3.) Sri P. Vilaskumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Nitesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned notification issued by the respondent-authorities is contrary to law as the respondent-authorities are not allowed to invite new applications from the candidates for the post of temporary Training Co-ordinator in the place of petitioner. Accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court.