DODDAPPA S KALAGINAMANI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY consent of the parties, this Writ Petition is heard on merits.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as the Chairman of the Yadgir Town Planning Authority by order dated 21. 11. 2000. Pursuant to this order, he assumed the Office of the Chairman on 23. 11. 2000. The State Government has now issued an order dated 22. 7. 2003 appointing the 3rd respondent as Chairman in place of the petitioner. This order is under challenge" by the petitioner in this Writ Petition.

(3.) AT the time of preliminary hearing, I being satisfied that there cannot be any appointment without removing the petitioner from the Office of the Chairman, I ordered emergent notice regarding rule and granted an interim order of Stay. Subsequently, the State government has filed an application for vacating the stay. After hearing, I passed the order dismissing the application filed by the state Government for vacating the interim order, as the State government had not produced any order removing the petitioner from the post of the Chairman of the 2nd respondent. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent has now filed the application for vacating the stay. Along with the application for vacating the stay, the 3rd respondent has produced the corrigendum issued by the State government stating that the appointment of the 3rd respondent as chairman in place of the petitioner amounts to removal of the petitioner and accordingly, clarified that the order Annexure 'c' has to be read as a composite order which consists of removal of the petitioner from the post of Chairman and appointment of the 3rd respondent as Chairman in place of the petitioner Now in view of this corrigendum, the petitioner has been removed from the post of the chairman with effect from 22. 7. 2003. Now the question that requires to be considered is, whether the petitioner is entitled to continue in the Office for the period of three years, which is the normal term prescribed under the Rules framed under the Act.