AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anand Byrareddy, J.—Inspite of Respondent No. 1 being represented by counsel, no statement of objections are filed and the counsel remains absent. The counsel for the Petitioner is heard.
The facts stated in the petition are as follows:
That the Petitioner belongs to the Bhovi community and had studied upto the seventh standard in the Government Higher Primary School, Goolihatti, Hosadurga Taluk, Chitradurga District.
It is stated that the post of waterman or Neeraganti in Goolihatti Bhovihatti village, which is within the jurisdiction of the second Respondent - Grama Panchayat fell vacant, on account of the death of the Neeraganti who was holding the position. The Petitioner had applied for the same. The general body of the Grama Panchayth, by its decision on 28.10.2004, unanimously decided to appoint the Petitioner as the Neeraganti and his name was sent for prior approval of the first Respondent. The minutes of the meeting are produced at Annexure-A to the writ petition. The decision of the Grama Panchayath having been sent to the Chief Executive Officer, as stated, the CEO in turn had accorded approval for the appointment by his letter dated 6.11.2004. Pursuant to which, the first Respondent vide Official Memorandum dated 29.11.2004, accorded approval for the appointment of the Petitioner as Neerganti. A copy of the letter dated 6.11.2004 and the Official Memorandum are produced along with the writ petition. However, the Respondent did not take any further steps either to appoint the Petitioner or to assign the job. Inspite of several requests of the Petitioner, the Respondents did not take any further action. It is on that point that the Petitioner had filed the writ petition.
During the pendency of the writ petition, it transpires that notwithstanding that the Petitioner''s appointment had been duly approved and the formality of assigning the work was pending, the Respondents have chosen to appoint Respondent No. 3 as the Neeraganti of the said village. The Petitioner has therefore sought amendment of the writ petition to incorporate the subsequent events and it is that which is under challenge.
In the face of Annexures-A, B and C, which indicated that the Petitioner was duly appointed and the second Respondent not having chosen to formally assign the work to the Petitioner and thereafter, the Respondents having chosen to appoint Respondent No. 3 as Neerganti is irregular and takes away the vested right in the Petitioner and therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.
The petition is accordingly allowed. Annexure-E is quashed. Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to assign the work of Neeraganti to the Petitioner forthwith.