Karnataka High Court
Sri.M. Illyas S/O Ibrahimsab Sarpanch vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 June, 2025
Author: R.Devdas
Bench: R.Devdas
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7719-DB
WA No.100628 of 2017
C/W WP No.102913 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
WRIT APPEAL NO.100628 OF 2017 (S-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.102913 OF 2018 (S-KAT)
IN WRIT APPEAL NO.100628 OF 2017:
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
R/BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF RURAL WELFARE &
PANCHAYATH RAJ, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU.
2. THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF RURAL WELFARE &
PANCHAYATH RAJ, M.S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU-01.
- APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA)
MOHANKUMAR
B SHELAR
AND:
Digitally signed by
MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR
Location: High Court of
1. M. ILIYAS S/O. IBRAHIMSAB SARPANCH
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: JUNIOR ENGINEER,
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2025.06.19 11:15:51
+0530
ADD: MULLARWADI KUSTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL.
2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
ZILLA PANCHAYATH, KOPPAL.
- RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAYA S. HALLIKERI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. BHUSHAN B. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED 22.02.2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN
W.P.NO.101343/2016 & ETC.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7719-DB
WA No.100628 of 2017
C/W WP No.102913 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN WRIT PETITION NO.102913 OF 2018:
BETWEEN:
SRI. M. ILLYAS S/O IBRAHIMSAB SARPANCH
AGE: 55 YEARS, WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER,
AT THE OFFICE OF PANCHAYATH RAJ
ENGINEERING SUB-DIVISION,
KUSHTAGI TALUK, R/AT: MULLARWDI,
KUSHTAGI, KOPPAL DISTRICT.
- PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAYA S. HALLIKERI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
R/BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND
PANCHAYATH RAJ DEPARTMENT,
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA R/BY ITS REGISTRAR,
M.S. BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001.
3. THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF ENQUIRIES-4,
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001.
- RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. SANTOSH B. MALAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 13.11.2017 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU IN APPLICATION
NO.6517/2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-L IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY AND ETC.
THE WRIT APPEAL AND THE WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR
FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED
THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7719-DB
WA No.100628 of 2017
C/W WP No.102913 of 2018
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS) Since we are dealing with a Writ Appeal filed at the hands of the State Government and a Writ Petition filed by the respondent in the Writ Appeal and the grievance in both the cases arise from an action sought to be taken by the State as against the respondent, both these cases are clubbed, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The brief background is required to be given to understand as to why and how these two cases have come up for consideration before this Court. For the sake of convenience we will address the parties as 'the appellant- State of Karnataka' and 'the respondent-Mr. M. Iliyas'.
3. The respondent was appointed as Junior Engineer in the Rural Development and Panchayathraj Department on 01.10.1995, on contract basis. Subsequently on 01.10.2005 his services were regularized. However on a -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:7719-DB WA No.100628 of 2017 C/W WP No.102913 of 2018 HC-KAR complaint given by the respondent's cousin brother on 19.02.2014 with the Lokayuktha, the Lokayuktha submitted a report u/S 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayuktha Act, to the Government, prima facie finding that the allegations against the respondent is that at the time of his appointment in the year 1995 the respondent did not have the requisite educational qualification to be appointed as Junior Engineer. Pursuant thereto an order was passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Koppal, on 25.01.2016 demoting the respondent from the post of Junior Engineer to Second Division Clerk, having regard to the educational qualification, that the respondent had only passed S.S.L.C. and therefore he was eligible to be regularized in the post of Second Division Clerk.
4. The petitioner filed W.P. No. 101343/2016 calling in question the said order dated 25.01.2016 whereby he was demoted to the post of Second Division Clerk. The learned Single Judge found that although it is true that the petitioner had passed S.S.L.C. when he was appointed on -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:7719-DB WA No.100628 of 2017 C/W WP No.102913 of 2018 HC-KAR contract basis to the post of Junior Engineer, nevertheless the respondent obtained a Diploma Certificate at the hands of the Board of Technical Examination on 28.01.2005. The learned Single Judge held that although it may be true that the petitioner had only S.S.L.C. qualification in the year 1994 when he was appointed on contract basis, nevertheless for more than 24 years the petitioner has served as a Junior Engineer and in the meanwhile he has obtained Diploma Certificate and therefore it would not be just and proper to permit the demotion of the respondent. The State of Karnataka has filed this Writ Appeal questioning the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat, who had passed the order of demotion, in fact, is arraigned as respondent in these proceedings at the hands of the State Government.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7719-DB WA No.100628 of 2017 C/W WP No.102913 of 2018 HC-KAR
6. The respondent, in the meanwhile approached the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, being aggrieved of the order of entrustment of enquiry dated 02.07.20116 and the issuance of the Article of Charges dated 07.09.2016. The Tribunal however dismissed the application on the ground that when admittedly the petitioner did not have the requisite qualification to be appointed as Junior Engineer in the year 1995, there is ample material on record to establish acts of fraud and suppression of facts at the hands of the respondent herein. The respondent, aggrieved of the order of rejection of the application at the hands of the Tribunal, has filed W.P. No. 102913/2018.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that when the respondent was appointed as Junior Engineer in 1994, in his application he had written that he had appeared for Diploma in Civil Engineering Examination. Furthermore, attention of this Court is drawn to the Government Order bearing No. ¹C¸ÀÄE 17 -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:7719-DB WA No.100628 of 2017 C/W WP No.102913 of 2018 HC-KAR ¸É.¸À.C 94, Bengaluru dated 20.10.1994, which was holding the field at the time of the appointment of the respondent.
8. It is pointed out that in the Government Order it is directed that while regularizing the services of daily wagers and contract employees who have put in a minimum of ten years of service and a minimum of 240 days in an year, it should be ensured that such persons meet the requisite qualification of having served for a minimum of ten years and that they possess the minimum educational qualification for the said post as on the date of regularization of their services. Further, attention of this Court is also drawn to order dated 04.01.2006 at Annexure-A when the services of the respondent along with many other persons were regularized. In Annexure-1, it is pointed out that name of the respondent is found at Sl. No. 6 and educational qualification is shown as Diploma in Civil Engineering while taking into consideration the initial appointment as 01.10.1992 and completion of ten years as on 30.09.2002. However a modified order is -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:7719-DB WA No.100628 of 2017 C/W WP No.102913 of 2018 HC-KAR passed on 10.01.2006 at the hands of the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Panchayat at Annexure-B rectifying the date of entry into service as 01.10.1995 and completion of the period of ten years as on 30.09.2005 and regularization of the services on 01.10.2005.
9. Learned counsel submits that the factum of the respondent obtaining the Diploma in Civil Engineering during November 2004 has been taken into consideration and not only in respect of the respondent but many other such persons. The list at Annexure-1 contains names of 23 such other persons and it has been clarified in the preamble of the order that persons at Sl. No. 6, 12, 13, 20, 21 and 22 obtained the requisite educational qualification at a later stage and therefore their date of entry into service is accordingly modified to ensure that as on the date of regularization they have requisite educational qualification.
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7719-DB WA No.100628 of 2017 C/W WP No.102913 of 2018 HC-KAR
10. Learned counsel would therefore submit that all these aspects have been considered by the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Panchayat and the State Government having satisfied itself, issued necessary direction to the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Panchayat to proceed accordingly and the modified orders have been passed by the Chief Executive Officer six days after the original order of regularization was issued on 04.01.2006.
11. Learned counsel would further submit that at the instance of the respondent's cousin brother, who is enemically disposed towards the respondent, such an action could not have been initiated by the respondents to demote the petitioner from the post of Junior Engineer to the Second Division Clerk.
12. Learned counsel would submit, insofar as the entrustment of enquiry at the hands of the Lokayuktha, that the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Kempaiah reported in (1998) 6 SCC
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7719-DB WA No.100628 of 2017 C/W WP No.102913 of 2018 HC-KAR 103 has considered the scope and purport of the Lokayuktha to investigate the action, allegation and grievance as defined in sub Section (1), (2) and (8) of Sec. 2 of the Karnataka Lokayuktha Act, while considering Sec. 2(1) which reads as follows:
"The definition of the word "action" in Section 2(1) indicates that it encompasses administrative action taken in any form whether by way of recommendation or finding or "in any other manner", e.g., granting licences or privileges, awarding contract, distributing government land under statutory rules or otherwise or withholding decision on any manner etec. The expression "in any other manner" takes it in fold the last mentioned categories of administrative actions. The expression "in any other manner" contains general words which construed literally, should receive their full and natural meaning but when they follow specific and particular words of the same genus, it will be presumed that the legislature has used the general words in a limited sense to convey the meaning implied by specific and particular words. This follows from application of the rule of ejusdem generis. In the definition of action, the expression "in any other manner" follows "decision", "recommendation" or "finding". So it connotes other categories of administrative action; it cannot be
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7719-DB WA No.100628 of 2017 C/W WP No.102913 of 2018 HC-KAR interpreted to mean actions which have no nexus to any administrative action."
It was also held that the definition indicates that it encompasses administrative action taken in any form whether by way of recommendation or finding or that in any other manner of the example-granting licence or privilege, awarding contract, distributing government land under statutory rules or otherwise or withholding decision of any matter, etc. It was held that the expression "in any other manner" takes in its fold the last mentioned categories of administrative actions. The Apex Court also noticed the definition of the word "allegation" as contained in Sec. 2(2) which is couched in very wider terms, but as noticed above, for purpose of Sec. 7(2), the scope of investigation is confined to a grievance or allegation made in respect of an action within the meaning of Sec. 2(1) of the Act.
13. The Apex Court noticed the definition of the word "action" as defined therein would mean the administrative
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7719-DB WA No.100628 of 2017 C/W WP No.102913 of 2018 HC-KAR action taken by way of decision, recommendation or finding or in any other manner and includes willful failure or omission to act and other expression relating to such action shall be construed accordingly.
14. The learned counsel would therefore submit that it is plain and clear from the decision rendered by the Apex Court that the Lokayuktha is permitted to investigate only a matter pertaining to 'administrative action' on the part of an officer/ civil servant. However in a matter of such nature where the allegation is in respect of the conduct of the officer at the time of his recruitment would definitely not partake the nature of an 'administrative action' as defined therein. No doubt, the State Government or the employer is entitled to take action against such persons who have obtained appointment by furnishing false or fabricated documents. However it will be out of the purview of the Lokayuktha to enquire into such matters, since admittedly such conduct does not partake the nature
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7719-DB WA No.100628 of 2017 C/W WP No.102913 of 2018 HC-KAR of administrative action as defined in the Karnataka Lokayuktha Act.
15. Learned counsel for the Lokayuktha would submit that there are catena of decisions which clearly hold that delinquent officer is not entitled to question such action on the part of the Lokayuktha, since it would be premature to question the same at this juncture.
16. Learned AGA would also submit that when admittedly the respondent did not have the requisite qualification at the time of his appointment in the year 1992, and that the respondent admittedly obtained the degree during November, 2004, the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Panchayat was duty bound to take note of the same and take action in accordance with law.
17. Having heard the learned AGA, the learned counsel for the respondent-Lokayuktha and the contesting respondent, we find that the Chief Executive Officer failed to take note of the Government Order dated 20.10.1994.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7719-DB WA No.100628 of 2017 C/W WP No.102913 of 2018 HC-KAR The State Government cannot dispute the fact that the said Government Order dated 20.10.1994 was holding the field even in the year 2004 which clearly provides that a person should have the requisite educational qualification as on the date of regularization of the services.
18. In fact, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the contesting respondents, Annexure-A order dated 04.01.2006, by virtue of the Chief Executive Officer regularized the services of the contesting respondent and many other persons, bears reference to the Government Order dated 20.10.1994. However while passing the order of demotion the Chief Executive Officer has failed to look into the Government Order. Therefore, as on the date of regularization of the services, the contesting respondent had requisite educational qualification. In fact the Principal Secretary of the R.D.P.R. had communicated to the Chief Executive officer on 20.10.2015 at annexure-G that the question raised regarding the educational qualification and regularization of services of the
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7719-DB WA No.100628 of 2017 C/W WP No.102913 of 2018 HC-KAR contesting respondent was considered and had clearly directed that the matter stands closed. Nevertheless the Chief Executive Officer passed the impugned order on 25.01.2016 demoting the contesting respondent from the post of Junior Engineer to the post of Second Division Clerk, which was uncalled for.
19. We are also of the considered opinion that the entrustment of the enquiry in this regard, not being an administrative action on the part of the contesting respondent, during his services, could not have been entrusted to the Lokayuktha, since it is beyond the scope and object of the Karnataka Lokayuktha Act, to go into such grievances which arise during the recruitment of an employee. Further, since this Court has also opined that the regularization of services of the contesting respondent is in accordance with law, no further enquiry at the hands of the State Government or the Lokayuktha can continue.
20. We proceed to pass the following:
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7719-DB WA No.100628 of 2017 C/W WP No.102913 of 2018 HC-KAR ORDER
(i) The Writ Appeal filed by the State Government is dismissed;
(ii) The Writ Petition filed by Mr.Iliyas is allowed while setting aside the order of entrustment of enquiry dated 02.07.2016, the Articles of Charges dated 07.09.20116 and the impugned order dated 13.11.2017 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal in Application No. 6517/2017. Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(R.DEVDAS) JUDGE Sd/-
(K V ARAVIND) JUDGE BVV, CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 48