- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8380 RP No. 408 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT REVIEW PETITION NO. 408 OF 2022 BETWEEN: DR. LAKSHMIPATHY G., AGE 45 YEARS, S/O GOPALAPPA, GUEST FACULTY, DEPARTMENT OF VISUAL ARTS -SCULPTURE, BENGALURU UNIVERSITY, JNANA BHARATHI CAMPUS, BENGALURU-560 056. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUNIL S.RAO, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. T.SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BENGALURU UNIVERSITY, JNANA BHARATHI CAMPUS, BENGALURU-560 056, BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR. 2. THE REGISTRAR (VALUATION), BENGALURU UNIVERSITY, JNANA BHARATHI CAMPUS, BENGALURU-560 056. 3. THE DEAN, FACULTY OF ARTS, BENGALURU UNIVERSITY, JNANA BHARATHI CAMPUS, BENGALURU-560 056 Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8380 RP No. 408 of 2022 4. CO-ORDINATOR, DEPARTMENT OF VISUAL ARTS, BENGALURU UNIVERSITY, JNANA BHARATHI CAMPUS, BENGALURU-560 056. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRASANNA B R.,ADVOCATE) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 114 OF THE CPC, 1908, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN W.P.NO.5679/2014 (S- RES) DATED 29.05.2019 AND TO GRANT RELIEF AS PRAYED FOR IN THE WRIT PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS REVIEW PETITION IS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court under Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC, seeking review of order dated 29.05.2019 in W.P.No.5679/2014, wherein this Court at Paragraphs-2 and 3 has observed as follows: "2. In the instant petition, petitioner has assailed the communication dated 21.11.2013 by which appointment of Guest Faculty was undertaken by the Bengaluru University for the academic year 2013-14. 3. The stipulated period of 2013-14 has already been lapsed. Therefore, the writ petition do not survive for consideration. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous." - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8380 RP No. 408 of 2022 2. Heard Sri. Sunil.S.Rao, learned counsel for Sri. T.Seshagiri Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. B.R.Prasanna, learned counsel for the respondents- University. Perused the review petition papers. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had filed writ petition questioning Annexure-H, Communication dated 21.11.2013 addressed from Registrar, Bangalore University, whereunder, honorarium payable to the Guest Lecturers is communicated. Further, he submits that the petitioner had also prayed for consideration of his representation dated 30.11.2013 and 10.12.2013 (Annexures-J and K), wherein the petitioner had sought for set righting the work load and to pay the salary for 11 months during which, the petitioner had worked. Writ petition was disposed of stating that since the grievance of the petitioner is related to Academic Year 2014, which had lapsed by time, the petitioner had filed writ petition for the grievance relating to 2013-14. The writ petition was filed in the year 2014 and the matter was disposed of in the year 2019. Seeking review of the order which was disposed of in the year 2019 and review petition No.480/2020 is filed in the year 2021. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8380 RP No. 408 of 2022 4. Learned counsel Sri. Sunil.S.Rao would submit that while disposing of the writ petition, Prayer-B for writ of mandamus to consider the representation is not considered. A perusal of the representation, it is seen that the grievance of the petitioner relates to Academic Year 2013-14, which has already lapsed. 5. In view of the above, nothing would remain in the review also to consider. I do not find any error apparent on the face of the writ petition. Accordingly, review petition stands rejected. I.A.No.1/2023 filed to condone the delay is also rejected. SD/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE SMJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6