S.R. KATTI SCIENTIST-D SERICULTURE DIVISION KARNATAKA STATE SERICULTURE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT AND DR. U.D. BONGALE, DIRECTOR KARNATAKA STATE SERICULTURE RESE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, questioning the legality and validity of the impugned Notification dated 5.1.2007 issued by first respondent vide Annexure -A as the same is illegal and contrary to law and facts, has presented this writ petition. Further, petitioner has sought to direct the 1st respondent to appoint a candidate as Director of the Institute in accordance with the Cadre and Recruitment Regulations of 1998.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that, second respondent has been appointed as Director of the Karnataka State Sericulture Research and Development Institute (in short Institute) for the period of five years on 24.2.2001. After the expiry of the said period of five years, once again, he has been continued as Director of the said Institute until further orders, by notification dated 23.2.2006. Be that as it may. The first respondent herein has issued Notification dated 3.5.2006 vide Annexure -D, cancelling the notification issued on 23.2.2006 continuing the 2nd respondent in the post of Director of the Institute and appointed the Commissioner for Sericulture Development and Director of Sericulture as In -charge Director of the said Institute. When things stood thus, first respondent has issued the impugned Notification dated 5.1.2007, continuing second respondent as the Director of the said Institute. The said Notification issued by the first respondent is contrary to the Cadre and Recruitment Regulations. The relevant provision of Cadre and Recruitment Regulations stipulates for appointment of a candidate below aged of 50 years as Director of the Institute by direct recruitment by calling for applications. Without following the said procedure, first respondent has continued the second respondent as the Director of the said Institute vide Notification dated 5.1.2007 and contrary to the existing Regulations as on the date of issuing the said notification. Therefore, assailing the correctness of Annexure -A and seeking appropriate direction as referred above, petitioner felt necessitated to present this writ petition.

(3.) FURTHER learned Counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that, reliance placed by learned Senior Counsel appearing for second respondent during the course of his submission regarding continuation of service of the earlier director for two terms as per Annexures -8 and 9 has no bearing on the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. Further, he quickly submitted pointing out that, reliance placed by learned Senior Counsel appearing for second respondent during the course of his submission on the latest amendment for the recruitment of Director vide Government order dated 9th February 2007 bearing No. Cl 36:SLK:2006 has no bearing on the facts and circumstances of the case, since the instant writ petition is filed by petitioner on 8th January 2007 assailing the correctness of the impugned notification issued by the first appointing the second respondent as the Director.