Karnataka High Court
Smt. Chandrakala @ Chandramma vs The Executive Officer on 12 March, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:9999
WP No. 25128 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.25128 OF 2012 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT.CHANDRAKALA @ CHANDRAMMA
W/O LATE THIMMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/AT MARALAGODU VILLAGE
KARUR GRAMA
CHADAVARALLI POST
SAGAR TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.GANAPATHI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by CHAITHRA A 1. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Location: HIGH
COURT OF TALUK PANCHAYATH
KARNATAKA SAGAR TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT
2. THE PRESIDENT
TUMARI GRAMA PANCHAYATH
TUMARI, SAGAR TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT
3. THE PANCHAYATH
DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
TUMARI GRAMA PANCHAYATH
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:9999
WP No. 25128 of 2012
TUMARI, SAGAR TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT
4. THE PRESIDENT
SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT & MANAGEMENT
COMMITTEE
GOVERNMENT HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL
MARALAGOD (TUMARI)
SAGAR TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT
5. THE HEAD MASTER
GOVT. HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL
MARALAGOD (TUMARI)
SAGAR TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT
6. SMT.SHOBHAVATHI
W/O YOGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
MARALGOD VILLAGE
CHADARAVALLI POST
SAGAR TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.V.SHIVA REDDY, AGA FOR R.5;
SRI.B.J.ESWARAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R.2 AND R.3;
SRI.H.JAYAKARA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R.6
NOTICE TO R.1 AND R.4 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE SELECTION OF R6 AS COOK TO THE
GOVERNMENT HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, MARALGOD LIST
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:9999
WP No. 25128 of 2012
DTD.NIL MADE BY THE SELECTION COMMITTEE HEADED BY
THE R2 UNDER ANNEX-K TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed assailing appointment of respondent No.6 as a Cook to the Government Higher Primary School, Maralagod as per Annexure-K.
2. Facts leading to the case are as under; The petitioner has questioned impugned selection of respondent No.6 by the Selection Committee headed by respondent No.2 as per Annexure-K. The petitioner and respondent No.6 and other four applicants applied for the post of Cook in the Government Higher Primary School, Maralagod.
3. The petitioner's grievance is that respondent No.4, who is the President of School Development and -4- NC: 2024:KHC:9999 WP No. 25128 of 2012 Management Committee, has opined that though respondent No.6 has sufficient means to survive and her husband owned more than 2 acres of Arecanut land, the Selection Committee overlooking recommendation of respondent No.4, has selected respondent No.6 and appointment order is given to respondent No.6 as a Cook.
4. I have given my anxious consideration of the materials placed on record by the petitioner. I have also taken cognizance of the documents furnished along with statement of objections.
5. On meticulous examination of the materials on record, this Court opines that petitioner owns an agricultural land bearing Sy. No.68 measuring 1 acre. Annexure-R5 substantiates the claim of respondent No.6 that petitioner owns agricultural land to an extent of 1 acre. Respondent No.6, in her statement of objection to counter petitioner's contention, has placed on record the Medical Certificates issued as per Annexure-R5 to -5- NC: 2024:KHC:9999 WP No. 25128 of 2012 substantiate that her husband is physically handicapped and suffering from disability and having disability of 65% due to polio attack. The petitioner's claim that husband of respondent No.6 owned more than 2 acres is also countered at para No.6 of the statement of objection. Respondent No.6 has contended that her husband alone is not entitled for entire 2 acres of land. The land is ancestral property and her husband has two brothers and a sister and therefore, 1/4th share would come to 33 guntas and not 2 acres as alleged by the petitioner. Respondent No.6 has also placed on record the certificate issued by the Health Officer indicating that petitioner is presently working in the Government Health Department as Asha Worker.
6. If these significant details are taken into consideration, the fact that the writ petition is pending for consideration since 2012 and in absence of any interim order, respondent No.6 is found to be working as a Cook in respondent - School since 2012. On perusal of -6- NC: 2024:KHC:9999 WP No. 25128 of 2012 Annexure-R10, this Court would find that the petitioner is also working as a ASHA Karyakartha in the Health Department. On perusal of Annexure-R.8, this Court would find that the petitioner owns an agricultural land measuring 1 acre, wherein she has planted Arecanut in 30 guntas and in the remaining 10 guntas, she is growing paddy.
7. Upon closer examination, it is evident that both the petitioner and respondent No.6 exhibit similar financial conditions. Despite the petitioner's widowhood, her employment as an ASHA Karyakartha suggests a certain degree of financial stability. Likewise, upon scrutiny, respondent No.6's financial situation is found to be comparable to that of the petitioner. This parity in financial circumstances diminishes the significance of the petitioner's widowhood as a decisive factor in the appointment process. Furthermore, it is important to note that the appointment of respondent No.6 by the committee in 2012 was made in accordance with the -7- NC: 2024:KHC:9999 WP No. 25128 of 2012 prevailing circumstances and criteria at that time. The lapse of almost twelve years since the appointment underscores the principle of finality in judicial proceedings. Matters that occurred years ago cannot be retrospectively litigated without due cause, as this would undermine the stability and predictability of legal outcomes.
8. Therefore, even if the appointment process may have been subject to scrutiny, the financial parity between the petitioner and respondent No.6, coupled with the passage of time, renders the petitioner's claims regarding the appointment unjustifiable. The Court is thus precluded from entertaining claims pertaining to events that transpired over a decade ago, particularly when no substantial legal grounds for challenge are presented.
9. On the contrary, the counter materials placed on record by respondent No.6 clearly establishes that husband of respondent No.6 is handicapped and has a disability of 65% and the family own only 33 guntas of -8- NC: 2024:KHC:9999 WP No. 25128 of 2012 agricultural land. The opinion of respondent No.4 that the husband of respondent No.6 owns 2 acres of land is found to be factually incorrect. If Selection Committee, after properly analyzing and assessing eligibility of the petitioner and respondent No.6, has resolved to appoint respondent No.6 as a Cook way back in the year 2012, no indulgence can be granted at this juncture.
The writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, stands dismissed.
Pending applications, if any, are also dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47