Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 76135 (KAR)

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA v. DR. ROOPA K

RP/236/2025 · 2025-12-05

B M Shyam Prasad

Review Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51228 RP No. 236 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD REVIEW PETITION NO.236 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, M S BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001 2. THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU - 573 201 3. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001 4. THE JOINT DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001 Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51228 RP No. 236 of 2025 5. THE JOINT DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, MANGALORE - 575 001 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. V.SHIVAREDDY, AGA) AND: DR. ROOPA K AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS W/O DR. KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS, CANARA FIRST GRADE COLLEGE, MANGALORE D K DIST. 575 003 …RESPONDENT THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE 1 R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC, 1908, R/W ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 8.07.2024 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.46490/2012 (S-RES) TO THE EXTENT THAT IT DIRECTS THE FIXATION OF THE RESPONDENT'S SENIORITY AND UGC PAY SCALE FROM 12.09.2001; AND b) PASS SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51228 RP No. 236 of 2025 ORDERS AS MAY BE DEEMED JUST AND PROPER IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER Sri V Shivareddy, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the petitioners, is heard on merits as also on the application for condonation of delay. This Court is not persuaded to opine that there is sufficient cause for condonation of delay or error apparent to justify a review. As such, the application [I.A. No.1/2025] stands rejected and the petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to avail other remedies in law subject to all just exceptions. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE AN/-