C R ASHOK Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT is the petitioner in Writ Petition no. 9162/2008, wherein he had sought to quash the endorsement dated 25. 6. 2008 issued by the 2nd respondent pursuant to a communication dated 10. 6. 2008 issued by the 3rd respondent.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are: the appellant-writ petitioner is the grandson of one javaregowda who was the owner of the land bearing Sy. No. 261/1 and 2 to an extent of 21 guntas of Navile Village. The said land was submerged in the Hemavathi Left Bank Project in the year 1988-89. It is the case of the appellant that himself, his father, mother, brother and his grandfather were all living together and that they constitute a single family. 2. 1. Applications were invited for the post of Primary School Teachers by the 2nd respondent and the appellant-writ petitioner applied for the same claiming the quota under Dependents of Project Displaced Persons as per the amendment to Rule 9 of Karnataka Civil Services (General recruitment) Rules, 1977 (for short, the Rules) and he was selected for the post of primary school teacher. The DDPI, Davanagere, forwarded the documents furnished by the appellant for verification to the 3rd respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Hassan, regarding dependants of project displaced persons. The Deputy Commissioner, Hassan District, vide communication dated 10. 6. 2008 reported that the appellant, who is the grandson of the project displaced person, is not covered under the definition of Project displaced Persons. Accordingly, on the basis of the said report, the 2nd respondent has issued an endorsement dated 25. 6. 2008 stating that it is not permissible to appoint the appellant under the quota of Project Displaced persons and the appellant was informed to collect the original documents from the office of the 2nd respondent. Aggrieved by the said communication and the endorsement of the respondents, appellant preferred Writ Petition no. 9162 of 2008. 2. 2. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 30th June, 2008 holding that the definition of the members of the family of project displaced persons does not include the grandson, rejected the writ petition, however, reserving liberty to the appellant-writ petitioner to seek appointment in any other category, if it is permissible under the law.

(3.) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant, who reiterated the contentions that were urged before the learned Single Judge.