Kamble Satish Kumar vs. Dr. N. V. Prasad

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.32186-32199/2014

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 23-09-2014 in WP No.17485/2010, 16960/2010, 16964/2010, 16965/2010, 16966/2010, 16982/2010, 16984/2010, 16985/2010, 16989/2010, 16990/2010, 16974/2010, 17295/2010, 17318/2010 & 17327/2010 (S-KAT) passed by the High Court Of Karnataka At Bengaluru)

S G JAMALUDHEEN ETC ETC Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS ETC ETC & ORS. Respondent(s)

([ONLY I.A NOS. 12566/2021 AND I.A NO. 141222/2021 IN SLP (c) NO. 32186-32199/2014 AND SLP (c) NO. 32333-32357/2014 ARE LISTED. ] IA No. 141222/2021 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS IA No. 12566/2021 - CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION)

WITH

SLP(C) No. 32333-32357/2014 (IV-A) (FOR CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION ON IA 102322/2022 IA No. 102322/2022 - CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION)

Date : 29-07-2022 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. M. SUNDRESH

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Naveen R. Nath, Sr. Adv. Ms. K. V. Bharathi Upadhyaya, AOR Mr. Vishak Hegde M.S., Adv. Ms. Hetu Arora Sethi, AOR Mrs. Lalit Mohini Bhat, Adv. Mr. Rahul Jain, Adv. Mr. Anirudh Bhat, Adv. Ms. Aaparajita, Adv. Mr. Nizam Pasha, Adv. Mr. Anand Sanjay M. Nuli, Adv. Mr. Suraj Kaushik, Adv. Ms. Akhila Wali, Adv. Signature Not Verified

1

Mr. Agam Sharma, Adv.

M/s. Nuli & Nuli

For Respondent(s) Mr. R. V. Kameshwaran, AOR Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, AOR Mr. Vinayaka S. Pandit, Adv. Ms. Rakhi M., Adv. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Parikshit P. Angadi, Adv. Mr. Manan Kumar Misra, Sr. Adv. Ms. Apurma Sharma, Adv. Mr. H. Chandra Sekhar, AOR Ms. Rekha Chandrasekhar, Adv. Mr. Ram Sankar, Adv. Mr. Harish Pandey, AOR Mr. Manish Kumar, Adv. Mr. Anshuman Tiwari, Adv. Ms. Varsha Rana, Adv. Ms. Shweta Rajput, Adv. Ms. Pooja, Adv. Mr. Ravi Shanker Jha, Adv. Mr. Lakshmi Raman Singh, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

In order to amicably resolve the dispute, it has been suggested that the appellants having worked for 14 years and recruited in pursuance to a notification of 2006, if they are sought to be removed and denied their benefits, it may result in great injustice. On the other hand, learned counsel for the private respondents state that they have been agitating and on succeeding in two forums all they are wanting is their recruitment. There are stated to be 11 such candidates.

In our view, it is in the fitness of the case that the State Government finds an amicable resolution to this dispute which is in a sense their own creation.

Learned counsel for the State to obtain instructions as

2

to how and in what manner the private respondents can be adjusted or absorbed, failing which, the concerned Secretary should be personally present in the Court.

List IA No.141222/2021, IA No.12566/2021 & IA No. 102322/2022, for directions on 30th August, 2022.

(RASHMI DHYANI PANT) (POONAM VAID) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER