Upalokyukta's nomination challenged
A Division Bench of Karnataka High Court today refused to hear a PIL petition challenging the appointment of Upalokyukta and directed that it be referred to another bench.Updated: Jul 21, 2010 19:30 IST
A Division Bench of Karnataka High Court today refused to hear a PIL petition challenging the appointment of Upalokyukta and directed that it be referred to another bench.
When the petition by city advocate R L Narasimham Murthy came up for hearing before the bench comprising Justice N K Patil and Justice A S Bopanna, the Judges refused to hear it and directed that it be posted before the Chief Justice for hearing by another bench.
The petitioner had challenged the recent appointment of retired high court Judge S B Majage as the Upalokaukta on the ground that was it was contrary to the Administrative Tribunal Act.
He contended that the nomination was "contrary" to section 11E of the Administrative Tribunal Act which states a member (other than the Chairman) of any other tribunal shall, subject to other provisions of this act, be eligible for appointment as Chairman of such Tribunal or as a Chairman, Vice-Chairman or other member of any other Tribunal, but not for any other employment either under the government.
Since the Upalokayukta occupied the post of Vice-Chairman of Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in the past, his appointment was "illegal", the petitioner stated.
First Published: Jul 21, 2010 19:27 IST