Karnataka High Court
Shankreppa S/O Manappa Bilupttar vs The Registrar General Ors on 1 April, 2019
Author: P.B.Bajanthri
Bench: P.B.Bajanthri
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF APRIL, 2019
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BAJANTHRI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.G.M.PATIL
WRIT APPEAL No.200661/2018 (S-DIS)
Between:
Shankreppa
S/o Manappa Bailupattar,
Age: 32 years, Occ: Nil,
R/o Chatnalli, Tq. Shahapur,
Dist. Yadgir - 585 201.
... Appellant
(By Sri P. Vilas Kumar Marthand Rao, Advocate)
And:
1. The Registrar General,
High Court of Karnataka,
Bengaluru - 01.
2. The District & Sessions Judge,
Yadgir - 585 201.
3. The Chief Administrative Officer,
District & Sessions Court,
Yadgir - 585 201.
... Respondents
(By Sri R.S.Sidhapurkar, Advocate)
2
This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the
Karnataka High Court Act, praying to allow the appeal and
set aside the order of learned Single Judge, dated
01.06.2018 passed in W.P.No.81964/2012 and
consequently, direct the respondents to appoint the
petitioner to the post of Process Server with retrospective
date on which other selected candidates have been
appointed pursuant to the notification dated 06.10.2010
which is at Annexure-B with all consequential benefits,
arrears of salary with Seniority...etc.
This appeal coming on for admission this day,
P.B.BAJANTHRI, J., delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
In the instant appeal appellant has questioned the validity of learned Single Judge's order dated 01.06.2018.
2. The brief facts of the case are that ;- Second respondent invited application for various posts in the District Court at Yadgiri. Appellant is one of the candidate to the recruitment to the post of Process Server, pursuant to the notification dated 06.10.2010. He was called for interview on 13.03.2012 vide interview notice dated 17.02.2012. He was selected for the post of Process Server which is evident from the selection list 3 vide order dated 21.03.2012. When things stood thus, the second respondent forwarded a communication to the Deputy Commissioner of Yadgiri District on 05.04.2012 to ascertain the appellant's caste certificate. It seems there was some communication from Deputy Commissioner to second respondent about appellant's conduct. Based on the Deputy Commissioner's communication second respondent proceeded to cancel the appellant's selection to the post of Process Server.
3. Feeling aggrieved by the order of cancellation, Appellant presented the writ petition. Writ Petition No.81964/2012 was decided on 01.06.2018 while rejecting the appellant's contentions. Hence the present appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that in the absence of any documentary evidence relating to conduct of the appellant assessed by the Deputy Commissioner, 4 second respondent has proceeded to cancel his selection to the post of Process Server and that to behind the back of the appellant. It was further contended that once the appellant is selected without assigning proper reasons supported by documents his selection cannot be nullified by selecting authority. The aforesaid contention has not been appreciated by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge proceeded to dismiss the writ petition based on Para 6 of the written statement, which are very vague allegations and are not supported by any documentary evidence. That apart learned Single Judge has not ascertained what was the information obtained by the second respondent from the Deputy Commissioner, which is behind the back of the appellant. Hence, learned Single Judge's order is liable to be set aside.
5. Per contra learned counsel for respondent vehemently contended that learned Single Judge has taken note of written statement and the serious 5 allegations leveled against the appellant. He has stressed on para No.6 read with sub paras 6(1) to 6(6) of the written statement filed in writ petition No.81964/2012.
6. It was further contended that having regard to the nature of allegations against the appellant, appellant is not entitled to maintain the present writ appeal and there is no infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge and he supports the learned Single Judge's order.
7. Before adverting to the contentions of the parties we have directed the second respondent to furnish selection records so as to go through the relevant documents which is stated to have been received by the second respondent from the Deputy Commissioner, Yadgiri in respect of appellant's conduct. Despite giving sufficient time Respondents were unable to produce the same. We have received communication 6 from the second respondent on 26.02.2019, wherein it is clearly stated that "there is no documentary evidence available in this office and copy of office Order No.DCY/ADMN/66/2012 dated 28.04.2012 with regard W.A.No.200661/2018 (W.P.No.81964/2012) (S-DTS) on the file of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka."
8. Facts relating to inviting application and participation of the appellant and rejection of his selection are undisputed. On 05.04.2012 the second respondent has sought certain information from Deputy Commissioner, Yadgiri. It seems Deputy Commissioner furnished certain information, based on such communication second respondent proceeded to cancel the appellant's selection to the post of Process Server. No documentary evidence has been placed or appellant was heard in the matter with reference to adverse report stated to have been received by the second respondent from the office of Deputy Commissioner, Yadgiri. Thus, 7 appellant has not provided opportunity in respect of stated to be adverse report of the Deputy Commissioner.
9. Further in the written statement filed in Writ petition in particularly para No.6 reads as under :
"6. It is submitted that, as per the records, at the time of interview the petitioner has misguided and submitted false information before the Respondent No.2 i.e., District and Sessions Judge Yadgiri at the time of interview. This fact, came to the knowledge of District and Sessions Judge, Yadgiri, after collecting information confidentially which is as follows :-
1) It is noticed that the petitioner was involved in so many criminal cases.
2) The petitioner had passed SSLC examination by impersonation i.e., by making Nagappa S/o Hanumantappa Kamal, R/o Chatnalli to write examination on his behalf.
3) That as per the confidential
information gathered from his
8
village and taluka it has come to
right that the petitioner is a thief.
4) On verifying the application filed by the petitioner with the written test at the time of interview it is seen that the handwritings do not match.
5) On confidential enquiry conducted by police intelligence it has come to light that the character and conduct of the petitioner is not up to the mark so as to induct him and into the judicial department.
6) On enquiry it was found that, the petitioner is having good source of income but at the time of interview he falsely stated that he has no source of income."
Perusal of sub paras (6)(1) to (6)(6) which are bald allegations have been leveled against the Appellant. There is no reference to any event like dates, assuming that there were serious allegations against the 9 appellant. Appellant should have been provided an opportunity to meet those allegations so as to deny him for selection to the post of Process Server. Respondents have not produced any documentary evidence along with written statement filed in writ petition, which was filed way back in the year 2016. Even to this day it was not produced.
10. In view of these facts and circumstances, the learned Single Judge has not appreciated, in the absence of documentary evidence allegations have been leveled against the appellant. Merely making allegations by means of statement which is not supported by documentary evidence one cannot proceed that there were allegations against appellant so as to deny him in participation to the post of Process Server, which has not been appreciated by the learned Single Judge. Thus, the learned Single Judge has erred in not summoning the records and so also appellant has been denied opportunity in respect of serious allegations stated in 10 written statement. Hence, learned Single Judge's order dated 01.06.2018 and order dated 28.04.2012 are set aside. Writ Petition No.81964/2012 stands allowed. We could have remanded the matter for fresh consideration, since Respondent No.2 expressed in his letter dated 26.02.2019 that records are not available. Therefore, the second respondent - District Judge, Yadgiri is hereby directed to proceed to issue order of appointment to the appellant with reference to the selection list dated 21.03.2012 within a period of four weeks. Appellant is entitled to seniority and other service benefits like pay fixation etc., from the date of his juniors' selection and appointment to the post of Process Server. For no fault of the appellant, appellant has been denied selection and appointment to the post of Process Server, therefore he is entitled to 50% of the salary for the period from the date of his juniors of appointment till appellant is appointed. Competent Authority is hereby directed to 11 calculate and disburse the amount within a period of three months.
Writ appeal is allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE sn Ct : RRJ