BUDDESAB KASHIMSAB MULLANAVAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition with the prayer to quash the official reminder at Annexure-A dtd. 28/7/2021 and notification dtd. 29/7/2021 vide Annexure-B issued by the respondent-Corporation calling for applications from eligible candidates to fill up the post of Gram Vidhyut Pratinidhi.

(2.) Learned counsel for the respondent No.4, who has filed statement of objection, had raised a contention that the petitioner is not working in the respondent-Corporation ever since the year 2010. The petitioner was therefore asked to file affidavit in this regard and in compliance of the orders passed by this Court, the petitioner has filed an affidavit dtd. 23/6/2023, wherein he has stated that he was working as Gram Vidhyut Pratinidhi from the year 2004 upto 7/11/2010 and since he had met with an accident, he could not attend the duty and he also has stated that the respondents have subsequently not allowed him to work. However, the fact remains that the petitioner has not being working in the post of Gram Vidhyut Pratinidhi ever since the year 2010 and no action has been taken by him against the respondents, even in case they have not allowed him to work. Under these circumstances, since petitioner has not been working with the respondent- Corporation ever since the year 2010, it is not open for him to challenge the notification at Annexures-A and B, wherein respondents have called for applications from the eligible candidates to fill up the post of Gram Vidhyut Pratinidhi.

(3.) Therefore, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending applications stands disposed of.