226 of the Constitution on the ground that the order of termination was void and illegal for the number companypliance of Sec.
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.6.85 in the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in W.P. No.
He companytinued to work for a period of more than 240 days.
25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
2 4/5 of 1985 on the ground of his being found unsuitable for the post.
The termination order further directed that the appellant would forfeit his chance for appointment in terms of selection and his name shall stand deleted from the select list.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The appellant challenged the validity of termination order before the High Court of Karnataka by means of a petition under Art.
He was number given a regular appointment but he was appointed to work as companyductor in temporary vacancy.
B. Pai, N.D.B. Raju, Miss Deepa and Vineet Kumar for the Respondent.
Briefly the facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant was selected for appointment as Conductor in the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation companystituted under the Transport Act, 1950, his name was placed on the select list prepared by the Selection Committee companystituted under the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Cadre and Recruitment Regulation 1982.
25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
K. Garg, V. Laxminarayana and D.K. Garg for the Appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SINGH, J. Special Leave to appeal is granted.
1339 NL of 1986.
While he was working as companyductor his services were terminated by the Order dt.
This appeal is directed against the order of the High Court of Karnataka dismissing the respondents writ petition under Art.
9171 of 1985.
226 of the Constitution challenging the order of termination of service on the ground that it was violative of Sec.
