CHINDANANDA H T Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is questioning the legality and correctness of the impugned notification dated 27. 02. 2007 in the proceedings bearing no. A. KU. KA. 451 MPS 2006 issued by the first respondent vide annexure-A. Further, he has sought for a direction directing the first respondent to continue the petitioner as Principal and Director on additional charge till the expiry of the contract period.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are as follows: the petitioner has been appointed as a Principal of Mandya institute of Medical Science on contract basis for a period of eleven (11) months by the first respondent pursuant to the petitioner's vast teaching experience of 24 years and yeomen sendee in the medical field. Further he was also placed in additional charge of the post of director along with the Principal's post. When things stood thus, to the shock and surprise of the petitioner, first respondent issued the impugned notification vide Annexure -A, prematurely terminating his services from the post of Principal and Director without any notice and without affording reasonable opportunity and appointed second respondent as the Principal and also additional charge of Director of the said Institute. With this background, petitioner has presented the instant Writ Petition challenging the action of first respondent, prematurely terminating his services and seeking appropriate relief as referred above.

(3.) I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned AGA for respondent No. l and Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2.