AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Kumar, J.—This review petition is filed seeking review of the common order dated 18-11-2010 insofar as W.P. No. 23440 of 2010 is concerned. The State of Karnataka preferred a batch of writ petitions challenging the order passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore, which held that inclusion of daughters-in-law, grandchildren, nephews and niece in the explanation to the ''member of the family'' of Project Displaced Person under Rule 9(2) of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) (Fifty-seventh Amendment) Rules, 2000 is arbitrary, irrational and unreasonable and the said Rule requires amendment. After the aforesaid order is passed by the Tribunal, a notification as per Annexure-A1 to the writ petitions came to be issued on 30-3-2010 including the words grandson, unmarried granddaughter, daughter-in-law, widowed daughter and widowed granddaughter to sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 of the Rules. The question that arose for consideration before this Court in said writ petitions was, whether those persons, who are now included in the definition by way of amendment, are entitled to the benefit of the scheme from the date of amendment or from the original order dated 23-11-2000. After hearing all the parties, this Court held that the amended provision is retrospective in operation and the respondents should have the benefit of amended provision. Accordingly, writ petitions came to be dismissed. The State is not aggrieved by this order.
In the review petition what they are contending is, one of the beneficiary is seeking benefit of the amended provision on the basis of forged documents. He has committed fraud misrepresenting to the Government that he belongs to the family of Project Displaced Person under Rule 9(2) of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) (57th Amendment) Rules, 2000 and by so misrepresenting, he has applied under the Yojana Nirashritaru category and obtained appointment as a primary teacher. Therefore, he is not entitled to the benefit of the amended provision. As both the parties did not canvass this point before us and the entire argument was confined to the question of law, this Court also had no occasion to go into the said aspect. The learned Government Advocate submits that if the fraud is proved, the said beneficiary would not be entitled to the benefit and if the fraud is not proved, the judgment equally applies to him and he will have the benefit of amended provision. We are of the view that, as we have not gone into this disputed question of fact while rendering the judgment, the judgment rendered in that case requires to be reopened. Accordingly, we pass the following:
ORDER
(a) The order dismissing W.P. No. 20440 of 2010 by our judgment dated 18-11-2010 is recalled.
(b) W.P. No. 20440 of 2010 is restored to its original file.
(c) It is open to the parties to place on record the requisite pleading and to take a decision on merits.
(d) It is made clear that this writ petition need not be listed again before the very same Bench. It shall be listed according to roster.
Ordered accordingly.