Karnataka High Court
Bheemavva Shivappa Eargar vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 January, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:524
WP No. 100712 of 2025
C/W WP No. 100710 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION NO. 100712 OF 2025 (S-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 100710 OF 2025 (S-RES)
IN WP No. 100712/2025:
BETWEEN:
RAMAPPA S/O. DURGAPPA
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O. KADEKOPPA, TQ: KUSHTAGI,
DIST: KOPPAL-582114.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. D.V.PATTAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. ANAND R.KOLLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
R/BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ,
M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
GIRIJA A.
BENGALURU-560001.
BYAHATTI
2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
ZILLA PANCHAYAT, KOPPAL,
Digitally DIST. KOPPAL-582114.
signed by
GIRIJA A.
BYAHATTI
Date:
3. SMT. BASAVVA SHARANAPPA KALLUR
2026.01.22
15:27:08
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
+0530
R/O. BENAKNAL, WARD NO.1,
TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL-582114.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NANDINI B.SOMAPUR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR BALAGERIMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. A.S.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF IN
THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED FINAL
SELECTION LIST DATED. 21.01.2025/ 24.01.2025 BEARING NO.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:524
WP No. 100712 of 2025
C/W WP No. 100710 of 2025
HC-KAR
SANKYE.JIPAMKO/GRAPAM/C.R.2024-25/5014 ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 AUTHORITY IN RESPECT OF THE KESUR GRAM
PANCHAYAT THE COPY OF THE IMPUGNED FINAL SELECTION LIST
VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND ETC.
IN WP NO. 100710/2025:
BETWEEN:
BHEEMAVVA SHIVAPPA EARGAR
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. SANKANUR, TQ: YELBURGA,
DIST: KOPPAL-583236.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. D.V.PATTAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
R/BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ,
M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
ZILLA PANCHAYAT, KOPPAL,
DIST. KOPPAL-582114.
3. SMT. CHAITRA D/O. SHREEKANT PUJAR
AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. SANKANUR, TQ: YELBURGA,
DIST: KOPPAL-583236.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NANDINI B.SOMAPUR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR BALAGERIMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. A.S.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A
WRIT OF IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE
IMPUGNED FINAL SELECTION LIST DATED. 21.01.2025/
24.01.2025 BEARING NO. SANKYE. JIPAMKO/ GRAPAM/
C.R.2024-25/25/5014 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2
AUTHORITY IN RESPECT OF THE SANKANUR GRAM PANCHAYAT
THE COPY OF THE IMPUGNED FINAL SELECTION LIST VIDE
ANNEXURE-D IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND
ETC.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:524
WP No. 100712 of 2025
C/W WP No. 100710 of 2025
HC-KAR
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
ORAL ORDER
Since common questions of law and facts arise for consideration in these writ petitions and the impugned final selection lists are issued pursuant to the same notification and selection process, both writ petitions are taken up together and disposed of by this common order. Brief facts:
In W.P.No.100712/2025:
2. The petitioner has called in question the final selection list dated 21/24.01.2025, issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Koppal and insofar as it relates to Kesur Grama Panchayat by which respondent No.3 has been selected to the post of Librarian/Information Center Supervisor. The selection is pursuant to the notification dated 29.02.2024/01.03.2024, -4- NC: 2026:KHC-D:524 WP No. 100712 of 2025 C/W WP No. 100710 of 2025 HC-KAR issued under the scheme governing appointments to Grama Panchayat Library and Information Center.
In W.P.No.100710/2025:
3. The petitioner in this writ petition challenges the very same final selection list dated 21/24.01.2025, insofar as it relates to Sankanur Gram Panchayat, whereby respondent No.3 has been selected.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that:
i. The impugned final selection lists are contrary to the Government's notification and guidelines, which require proper adherence to eligibility conditions.
ii. The petitioners secured highest PUC percentage and therefore deserved preference over the selected lists.-5-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:524 WP No. 100712 of 2025 C/W WP No. 100710 of 2025 HC-KAR iii. In W.P.No.100710/2025, respondent No.3 was shown as ineligible in the provisional list, and without filing objections was later declared eligible in the final list.
iv. The residence condition and the mandatory qualifications such as computer training/basic computer knowledge were allegedly not satisfied by the selected candidates.
v. The selection process suffers from non-application of mind and arbitrariness warranting interference by this Court.
5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 in W.P.No.100712/2025 submits that:
i. The writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed at the threshold. ii. It is contended that the selection was conducted strictly in accordance with the notification dated -6- NC: 2026:KHC-D:524 WP No. 100712 of 2025 C/W WP No. 100710 of 2025 HC-KAR 29.02.2024/01.03.2024 and the guidelines issued by Zilla Panchayat.
iii. Respondent No.3 possessed the mandatory certificate in Library Science, which is primary eligibility criteria in addition to PUC qualification and residence within concerned Taluka. iv. The petitioner does not possess the prescribed Library Science qualification and is therefore ineligible to seek appointment.
v. It is further contended that PUC marks do not confer any preferential right, as merit based on PUC percentage becomes relevant only in the absence of a candidate possessing essential Library Science qualification. Hence, the petitioner's reliance on higher marks is misconceived.
vi. Respondent No.3 submits that provisional list is only tentative, and upon verification of records -7- NC: 2026:KHC-D:524 WP No. 100712 of 2025 C/W WP No. 100710 of 2025 HC-KAR and documents, she was rightly found eligible and selected. No vested right accrues to the petitioner merely because of an entry in the provisional list. vii.That the petitioner having participated in the selection process without raising any objection at any stage is estopped from challenging after being unsuccessful.
6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 in W.P.No.100710/2025 submits that:
i. Respondent No.3 satisfied all eligibility conditions prescribed under the notification, including essential qualification in Library Science, residence and reservation requirements. ii. The petitioner does not possess the mandatory qualification and hence cannot seek comparison on the basis of PUC marks or computer training alone.-8-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:524 WP No. 100712 of 2025 C/W WP No. 100710 of 2025 HC-KAR iii. That the computer training requirement is not an overriding qualification and cannot supersede the essential qualification prescribed under the Notification.
iv. Respondent No.3 was shown as ineligible in the provisional list, however, the provisional list is subject to verification and correction before publication of the final list. v. The authority after considering the documents submitted by respondent No.3, has selected the said respondent under the final selection list. vi. That there is no arbitrariness, extraneous influence or political interference and that the selection process was transparent and merit based and no material is placed on record to substantiate the allegations of the petitioner. vii.The petitioner having voluntarily participated in selection process cannot be permitted to challenge -9- NC: 2026:KHC-D:524 WP No. 100712 of 2025 C/W WP No. 100710 of 2025 HC-KAR the outcome after being unsuccessful and the writ petition is an attempt to reopen a concluded selection process, which is impermissible in law.
7. This Court has carefully considered the contentions urged and perused the material and record.
8. From the records, this Court finds that the notification, governing the appointment clearly accords primacy to the possession of a prescribed Library Science qualification. The comparative merit based on PUC marks is relevant only when no candidate possessing the requisite qualification is available. The relevant portion of the notification reads thus:
"8) DAiÉÄÌ «zsÁ£À :
• ±ÉÊPÀëtÂPÀ CºÀðvÉAiÀÄ°è£À ªÉÄjmï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ gÉÆõÀÖgï «ÄøÀ¯Áw DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É C¨sÀåyðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß DAiÉÄÌ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁUÀĪÀÅzÀÄ MAzÀÄ ªÉÃ¼É E§âgÄÀ CxÀªÁ ºÉaÑ£À C¨såÀ yðUÀ¼ÄÀ ¸ÀªiÀ Á£ÀªÁzÀ CAPÀUÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß / ªÉÄjmï£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢zÀ°è ªÀAiÀĹì£À°è »jAiÀÄgÁzÀªÀgÀ£ÄÀ ß DAiÉÄÌUÉ ¥ÀjUÀt¸À¯ÁUÀĪÀÅzÀÄ.
• ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ¸Ànð¦üPÉõÀ£ï PÉÆøïð E£ï ¯Éʧæj ¸ÉÊ£ïì ¥ÀzÀ« ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀĪÀ C¨såÀ yðUÀ¼ÄÀ Cfð ¸À°è¸À¢zÀÝ°è ¦.AiÀÄÄ.¹.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:524 WP No. 100712 of 2025 C/W WP No. 100710 of 2025 HC-KAR ¥ÀÀjÃPÉëAiÀÄ°è C¨sÀåyðAiÀÄÄ UÀ½¹zÀ CAPÀUÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß DzsÀj¹ «ÄøÀ¯Áw ©AzÀÄ«£ÀAvÉ DAiÉÄÌUÉ ¥ÀjUÀt¸À¯ÁUÀĪÀÅzÀÄ. MAzÀÄ ªÉÃ¼É E§âgÀÄ CxÀªÁ ºÉaÑ£À C¨sÀåyðUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀªiÀ Á£ÀªÁzÀ CAPÀUÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß / ªÉÄjl£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢zÀ°è ªÀAiÀĹì£À°è »jAiÀÄgÁzÀªÀgÀ£ÄÀ ß DAiÉÄÌUÉ ¥ÀjUÀt¸À¯ÁUÀĪÀÅzÀÄ.
• UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄwªÁgÀÄ §A¢gÀĪÀ CfðUÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß ªÉÄjmï DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É SÁ° ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ½UÉ (gÉÆøÀÖgï ©AzÀÄ«£ÀAvÉ) ¸ÀªÄÀ £ÁV UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄw UÀæAxÁ®AiÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀiÁ»w PÉÃAzÀæªÁgÀÄ DAiÉÄÌ ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÀAiÀiÁj¸À¯ÁUÀĪÀÅzÀÄ. • ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉñÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 08-03-2023gÀ PÀæ.¸ÀA. 9 gÀ°è ¸ÀªÀÄvÀ® «ÄøÀ¯Áw ªÀUÀðPÉÌ «ÄøÀ°j¹zÀ jPÀÛ ¸ÁÜ£ÀUÀ½UÉ JzÀÄgÀÄUÁV D ªÀUÀðPÉÌ ¸ÉÃjzÀ C¨såÀ yðUÀ¼ÄÀ ®¨såÀ «®è¢zÀÝ°è D jPÀÛ ¸ÁÜ£ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß CzÉà £ÉÃgÀ «ÄøÀ¯ÁwUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ EvÀgÀ C¨såÀ yðUÀ½AzÀ ¨sÀwðªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁUÀĪÀÅzÀÄ.
• UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄwAiÀÄ UÀæAxÁ®AiÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀiÁ»w PÉÃAzÀæUÀ¼À ªÉÄðéZÁPÀgÀ ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ Cfð ¸À°è¸ÄÀ ªÀ C¨såÀ yðUÀ¼ÄÀ vÀvÀìªÀiÁ£À «zÁåºÀðvÉ ºÉÆA¢zÀ°è CªÀPÁ±À«gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. • C¨sÀåyðUÀ¼À CºÀðvÉAiÀÄ «µÀAiÀÄzÀ°è DAiÉÄÌ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ ¤zsÁðgÀªÉà CAwªÀĪÁVgÀvÀPÌÀ zÄÀ Ý."
9. In the present cases, the selected candidates possesses the mandatory Library Science qualification, which is supported by the documentary evidence placed on record. The petitioners admittedly did not possess such qualification and seek preference only on the basis of the
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:524 WP No. 100712 of 2025 C/W WP No. 100710 of 2025 HC-KAR higher PUC marks, which cannot override the essential qualification prescribed under the Notification. The contention that respondent No.3 was shown as ineligible in the provisional list does not by itself vitiate the final selection. The provisional list is only tentative in nature and the competent authority is entitled to verify records and correct the provisional assessment before the publication of the final list.
10. No material is placed by the petitioner to demonstrate that the certificate relied upon by the authority is forged or invalid. It is also well settled that the selection and the appointment fall primarily within domain of the appointing authority and the judicial review is confined to examine the decision making process, not the merits of the decision itself. No arbitrary, mala fides of statutory violation are established in the present cases. The petitioner having participated in the selection process with full knowledge, eligibility criteria, and having been unsuccessful cannot be permitted to assail the selection
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:524 WP No. 100712 of 2025 C/W WP No. 100710 of 2025 HC-KAR process after the declaration of the results, as the doctrine of acquiescence squarely applies in the absence of any material produce that there is arbitration or violation of the Governing Notification, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned final selection lists. Accordingly, this Court pass the following:
ORDER The writ petitions are dismissed. Pending IA's, if any, would not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA AT Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27