Karnataka High Court
Manjula D/O Amaresh Gudi vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 31 July, 2023
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6014-DB
WP No. 201089 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
WRIT PETITION NO. 201089 OF 2021 (S-KAT)
BETWEEN:
MANJULA D/O AMARESH GUDI,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCC NIL,
R/O WARD NO. 9, UPPARA ONI,
KAVITAL VILLAGE TQ MANVI (SIRUWAR)
Digitally signed
DIST RAICHUR.
by SOMANATH
PENTAPPA
MITTE
Location: HIGH
...PETITIONER
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. I.R.BIRADAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT AND SURVEY
SETTLEMENT AND LAND RECORDS,
M.S BUILDING, BENGALURU 560 001
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6014-DB
WP No. 201089 of 2021
2. THE COMMISSIONER/CHAIRMAN OF
SELECTION COMMITTE,
SURVEY SETTLMENT, LAND RECORDS
(SSLR) DEPARTMENT, K.R CIRCLE,
BENGALURU-560001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.ARTHI PATIL, HCGP FOR RESPONDENTS)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO (I) ISSUE
A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 21.10.2020 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT KALABURAGI IN
APPLICATION NO.20239/2019 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-
A BY ALLOWING APPLICATION 20239/2019 AS PRAYED
FOR IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. (II)
ISSUE ANY SUITABLE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION AS
THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, RAJESH RAI.K J.,
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari and to quash the order dated 21.10.2020 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Kalaburagi (for short hereinafter as 'the Tribunal') in application No.20239/2019, -3- NC: 2023:KHC-K:6014-DB WP No. 201089 of 2021 wherein the Tribunal rejected the application filed by the petitioner.
2. Brief facts of the case are that, the applicant has passed SSLC, PUC and also done computer course of Microsoft Office in the Indian Institute of Computer Technology. The respondent No.2 has called applications for 151 posts of Bandh Peon and 10 posts of Office Peon by way of direct recruitment on merit basis as per notification dated 08.09.2017. The petitioner has applied for the said post of Bandh Peon. It is the further case of the petitioner that the respondent No.2 has published a list of selected candidates and called for verification of documents from among the eligible candidates by fixing the date of verification as 30.07.2018 and the name of the applicant figured at Sl.No.80 in the said list. Later, the respondent No.2 forwarded the list of selected candidates to the Deputy Commissioner, Raichur, Superintendent of Police, District Social Welfare Department, Raichur and Social Welfare Officer, District Scheduled Caste, Raichur for verification of the certificates and also calling for police report as well as regional certificate of Hyderabad Karnataka region. In the meantime, -4- NC: 2023:KHC-K:6014-DB WP No. 201089 of 2021 on 06.08.2019, the respondent No.2 issued an Official Memorandum that the notification issued on 08.09.2017 calling for applications for the posts of 151 Bandh Peons and Office Peons is cancelled and respondent No.1 issued a direction to respondent No.2 to fill up the said posts through out-sourcing. Aggrieved by the said cancellation of the selection notification through Official Memorandum dated 16.08.2019 passed by respondent No.2 and also the letter dated 13.08.2019, the petitioner approached the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Kalaburagi by filing an application to set aside the same and to direct the respondent No.2 to complete the selection process and issue appointment order to the petitioner. The Tribunal after considering the materials on record, so also hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents, passed the impugned order dated 21.10.2020 and thereby rejected the application filed by the petitioner as stated supra. The said order is challenged in this writ petition.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant Sri. I.R.Biradar and Smt. Arthi Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State.
-5-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6014-DB WP No. 201089 of 2021
4. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner vehemently contended that, after the issue of notification, the documents were verified and the petitioner's name figured at Sl.No.80 in Annexure-A6 and only the appointment orders were yet to be issued after receiving police report and caste validity certificate and the Hyderabad Karnataka region certificate. In the meantime, the first respondent cancelled the notification which is not sustainable under law.
5. He would further contend that the notification dated 08.09.2017 and letter dated 13.08.2019 issued by the respondents are illegal and erroneous in law, since the same are issued by the authority at the fag end of selection process, wherein the petitioner and others have been selected as Bandh peons and Office peons and they were waiting for an appointment order for a period of three years. Hence, the action of the respondent No.2 is contrary to Article 371(j) of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, he prays to allow the writ petition and to set aside the orders passed by the Tribunal.
6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader contended that, it is policy decision of the Government -6- NC: 2023:KHC-K:6014-DB WP No. 201089 of 2021 and since the Government had decided to fill up the vacancies through out-sourcing and since final selection list has not been published, the applicant will not get a right for appointment and as such there is no illegality committed by the respondent by canceling the notification dated 08.09.2017.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner and so also the learned High Court Government Pleader, it could be seen from the records that, though the notification was issued calling for application for the post of 151 Bandh Peons and 10 posts of Office Peons on 08.09.2017, admittedly, the final selection list is not announced. Though the respondent No.2 has called for verification of documents, in the process of obtaining police verification and caste reports, the Government has issued the notification dated 06.08.2019, cancelling the earlier notification dated 08.09.2017 calling for the application for the post of 151 Bandh Peons and 10 Office Peons and further respondent No.1 issued directions to respondent No.2 to fill up the said posts through out-sourcing.
8. As rightly contended by the Government Pleader, it is the policy decision of the Government and since the -7- NC: 2023:KHC-K:6014-DB WP No. 201089 of 2021 Government had decided to fill up the vacancies from out-sourcing and admittedly the final selection list was not published, the petitioner will not get any right for appointment. Our view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Punjab State Electricity Board V/s Malkiat Singh, reported in AIR 2004 SC 5061, and also in the case of Balakrushna Behera and another V/s Satya Prakash Dash, reported in AIR 2008 SC 223.
9. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be rejected. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE SMP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22