S. NagarajA. Vs. the Divisional Controller B M T C, and ors

S. NagarajA. vs The Divisional Controller B M T C, and ors

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Decided Nov 09, 2010

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/907466

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/907466
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: V.Jagannathan J.
Decided On: Nov 09, 2010
Case Number: W.P.No. 16277/2010 (S.K)
Subject: Constitution

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

[V.JAGANNATHAN J.] This W.P filed praying to call for the entire records for the B.M.T.C management respondent pertaining the petitioner the following reliefs as.

Key legal issue: Constitution

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

S. NagarajA.

Advocate Sri S NAGARAJA. ADV

Respondent

The Divisional Controller B M T C, and ors

Advocate Sri L GOVINDARAJ. ADV

Excerpt

[v.jagannathan j.] this w.p filed praying to call for the entire records for the b.m.t.c management respondent pertaining the petitioner the following reliefs as.order1. the petitioner party-in-person has come up before this court seeking a direction to the respondent - corporation to accord promotion to the petitioner from the post of conductor to that of assistant traffic inspector and the main ground put forward in the petition is that the petitioner has been working as a conductor for a long period of time and has not been given any promotion as assistant traffic inspector.2. having heard the party-in-person to the above effect and on perusal of the papers annexed to the writ petition, except the 'call notice', no other documents are produced to show the number of years of service put in as conductor and what criteria is there for being considered for the post of assistant traffic inspector. though the party-in-person placed for my perusal an order of the corporation dated 22.5.81 to submit that, though he was appointed as badali conductor, has been absorbed on probation with effect from 1.4.81. yet no other material is placed as regards the relief now sought from this court.3. if the petitioner has been working as conductor ever since his appointment and no promotion has been given to him, the petitioner can only make a request to the respondent-bmtc in this regard and if at all such representation is given by the petitioner, the same shall have to be considered in accordance with law by the respondent. with the above observations, this petition stands disposed of.

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. The petitioner party-in-person has come up before this court seeking a direction to the respondent - Corporation to accord promotion to the petitioner from the post of conductor to that of Assistant Traffic Inspector and the main ground put forward in the petition is that the petitioner has been working as a conductor for a long period of time and has not been given any promotion as Assistant Traffic Inspector.

2. Having heard the party-in-person to the above effect and on perusal of the papers annexed to the writ petition, except the 'call notice', no other documents are produced to show the number of years of service put in as conductor and what criteria is there for being considered for the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector. Though the party-in-person placed for my perusal an order of the Corporation dated 22.5.81 to submit that, though he was appointed as Badali conductor, has been absorbed on probation with effect from 1.4.81. Yet no other material is placed as regards the relief now sought from this court.

3. If the petitioner has been working as conductor ever since his appointment and no promotion has been given to him, the petitioner can only make a request to the respondent-BMTC in this regard and if at all such representation is given by the petitioner, the same shall have to be considered in accordance with law by the respondent.

With the above observations, this petition stands disposed of.

Same Court & Year Karnataka · 2010 Same Parties S. NagarajA. vs The Divisional Controller B M T C, and ors Same Subject Constitution Same Judge V.Jagannathan J.

Constitution