AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Subhash B. Adi
Sri B.C. Prabhakar, learned counsel is directed to take notice for respondents 1 and 2. Petitioner has sought for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Assistant Lineman based on marks obtained by him in the I.T.I examination. The case of the petitioner is that he had secured 75.76% in I.T.I course and persons, who have secured less than 75% marks have been selected.
The facts, which are not in dispute are that the posts of Assistant Lineman were notified as per the notification dated 15.02.2007, in pursuance of which, the petitioner had also applied. However, till the selection list was published, he did not choose to raise any objection. After the selection was made, he filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P. No.14114/2007. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 19th September 2008 inter alia directing the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner within two weeks from the date of receipt / production of a copy of the said order.
When the said representation was not considered, the petitioner had filed another writ petition before this Court in W.P. No.37204/2011. It was also disposed of by order dated 23.02.2012 inter alia issuing a direction to the Karnataka Information Commission to consider and dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner dated 11.01.2011 with liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedy in accordance with law on securing information.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that subsequently, an endorsement dated 8.3.2012 as per annexure `M` has been issued inter alia stating that no document was available to show as to whether the petitioner had appeared for the test. However, the petitioner`s counsel does not dispute that the petitioner had not appeared for the test as he was not issued with any notice or information as regard to the test. It is not in dispute that the selection process has been completed long back and candidates have been selected to the posts of Assistant Lineman. Though the petitioner had filed two writ petitions, he did not choose to seek appropriate relief. Now after nearly three years after selection, this writ petition is filed. It cannot be entertained to annul the appointments made three years back, more particularly, when the petitioner has not questioned those appointments. Even if a direction as sought for is issued, it will not serve any fruitful purpose.
Hence, the writ petition is dismissed.
At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has made a fresh application for appointment as Assistant Lineman in pursuance of the notification dated 09.12.2011. If the petitioner has filed an application in accordance with the notification, the same may be considered on its merit.