Karnataka High Court
Raj Mohammed vs Smt Shilpa R on 14 January, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:226-DB
CCC No. 200139 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.200139 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1. RAJ MOHAMMED S/O HASSAIN SAB,
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: NOW NIL,
R/O. NEAR JAMIA MASJID, HUTTI,
TQ. LINGASUGUR,
DIST. RAICHUR-584 115.
2. FAIMEEDA D/O RAJ MOHAMMED,
AGE: 24 YEARS, R/O. NEAR JAMIA MASJID,
HUTTI, TQ. LINGASUGUR,
Digitally signed by
DIST. RAICHUR-584 115.
SUMITRA ...COMPLAINANTS
SHERIGAR
Location: HIGH
(BY SRI NITESH PADIYAL, ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AND:
SMT. SHILPA R.,
MANAGING DIRECTOR,
HUTTI GOLD MINES CO. LTD.,
HUTTI, TQ. LINGAUGUR,
DIST. RAICHUR-584 115.
...ACCUSED
(BY SRI VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:226-DB
CCC No. 200139 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS CONTEMPT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 215
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTIONS 11 & 12 OF
CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED AND
ORDER FOR TAKING ACTION AS DEEMED FIT INCLUDING
PUNISHING THEM INSOFAR AS DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER
PASSED IN W.P. NO.203630/2018, DATED.23.09.2024, WHICH
IS AT ANNEXURE-A AND COMMON ORDER PASSED IN W.A.
NO.200042/2025 C/W. CCC NO.200018/2025 DATED
21.03.2025, WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-B AND ORDER FOR
TAKING ACTION AS DEEMED FIT INCLUDING PUNISHING THE
RESPONDENT WITH IMPRISONMENT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ) The complainant has filed this contempt petition alleging non-compliance of an order dated 23.09.2024 passed in W.P. No.203630/2018 and W.A. No.200042/2025 connected with C.C.C. No.200018/2025.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that, the complainant No.1 was a land-loser and as per the HGML Recruitment (Appointment of Land Losers/Family -3- NC: 2026:KHC-K:226-DB CCC No. 200139 of 2025 HC-KAR Members) Rules, 2012 [for short '2012 Rules'], one member of a family of the land-loser is entitled for an appointment. Accordingly, complainant No.1 was granted an appointment on 07.11.2014. However, complainant No.1 claimed that he was unwell and therefore, made a request to provide appointment to his nephew. He again submitted another representation dated 26.05.2016 requesting that the employment be given to his daughter, who is complainant No.2. Subsequently complainant No.1 was dismissed from service since he remained un- authorizedly absent. The same was challenged before this Court in W.P. No.203630/2018. The learned Single Judge in terms of the order dated 23.09.2024 directed the respondents in W.P. No.203630/2018 to appoint complainant No.2 in place of complainant No.1 within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. This was then challenged by the employer of the accused in W.A. No.200042/2025. The Division Bench after noticing the intendment of the Rules 2012, directed -4- NC: 2026:KHC-K:226-DB CCC No. 200139 of 2025 HC-KAR for compliance of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. It appears that the respondent issued an order appointing complainant No.2 on 30.04.2025. The complainants feeling aggrieved by certain conditions imposed in the order of appointment filed this contempt petition alleging that the accused has failed to abide by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court. This Court in terms of an order dated 12.09.2025 held that the conditions attached to the order of appointment were prima facie contumacious and therefore directed the accused to be present before the Court. The accused then issued modified appointment order dated 31.10.2025 withdrawing the conditions imposed in the earlier order of appointment. The complainants claim that the appointment order is in violation of the Rules 2012 and also in violation of the order passed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 200042/2025.
3. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the Division Bench had specifically held -5- NC: 2026:KHC-K:226-DB CCC No. 200139 of 2025 HC-KAR that Rule 3 and Rule 4 of the Rules 2012, contemplates that the appointment shall be as per the educational qualification and shall be initially for a period of 2 years on probation and the service conditions shall be regulated as per the rules. He therefore submits that while considering the case of the complainant No.2, the accused must have considered the educational qualification of the complainant No.2, who is a Post Graduate. He therefore submits that the appointment of complainant No.2 is not in accordance with the Rules-2012 and therefore is a case of continuous contempt.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused submits that following the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.203630/2018, the appointment that was earlier given to the complainant No.1 was given to complainant No.2 and therefore the complainants cannot allege non-compliance of the order passed in W.P. No.203630/2018. He contends that the complainants cannot keep on renewing the request for appointment. He -6- NC: 2026:KHC-K:226-DB CCC No. 200139 of 2025 HC-KAR contends that what was given to complainant No.1 was made over to complainant No.2 as per his request and therefore, the complainants cannot allege that there is non-compliance of the order passed in W.P. No.203630/2018.
5. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the complainants and the learned counsel for the accused.
6. The learned Single Judge of this Court in terms of the order dated 23.09.2024 had considered the case of the complainants and had directed the accused to provide the appointment that was offered and accepted by complainant No.1 to complainant No.2 within a period of 2 months. Though the Division Bench of this Court had held that as per Rule 3 and Rule 4 of the Rules-2012, the appointment should be commensurate with the educational qualification, the Division Bench went on and directed the accused to comply with the order passed by -7- NC: 2026:KHC-K:226-DB CCC No. 200139 of 2025 HC-KAR the learned Single Judge. The accused thereafter issued an order of appointment dated 30.04.2025 appointing complainant No.2 in Grade-12, subject to certain conditions. This Court held that the conditions attached to the order of appointment was contumacious and therefore, directed the accused to be present before the Court. The accused has thereafter modified the order of appointment and has issued a fresh order dated 31.10.2025. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the accused has complied with the order passed by this Court.
7. However, the contention of the complainants that the order of appointment is not in accordance with Rules-2012 and that it is not in accordance with the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, is something that will have to be urged in a separate writ petition that may be filed by the petitioner. Consequently, we cannot upset the order of appointment issued to complainant No.2 in this contempt petition. Therefore, we drop the contempt petition and reserve liberty to complainant No.2 -8- NC: 2026:KHC-K:226-DB CCC No. 200139 of 2025 HC-KAR to challenge the order of appointment in the manner known to law.
8. The accused shall continue the desk work assigned to complainant No.2.
Sd/-
(R.NATARAJ) JUDGE Sd/-
(TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY) JUDGE SBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9