Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka Repby Its ... vs Vijay Kumar Hallur on 23 September, 2023
Author: S.R. Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R. Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11138-DB
WP No. 102652 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
WRIT PETITION NO. 102652 OF 2022 (S-KAT)
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
(PRIMARY AND SECONDARY),
M.S.BULDING, DR.B R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL
AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS,
M.S.BUILDING, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001.
3. THE COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC
INSTRUCTIONS, PRIMARY AND SECONDARY
EDUCATION, NEW PUBLIC OFFICES,
JAGADISH T R
K.R.CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560001.
HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH 4. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
2023.10.10
11:13:57 +0530 INSTRUCTIONS PRIMARY AND
SECONDARY EDUCATION,
NEW PUBLIC OFFICES, K.R.CIRCLE,
BELAGAVI-585101.
5. THE COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC
INSTRUCTIONS, DHARWAD DIVISION,
DHARWAD-585101.
6. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
INSTRUCTIONS DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
BAGALKOT-585101.
7. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11138-DB
WP No. 102652 of 2022
INSTRUCTIONS DHARWAD-585101.
8. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
INSTRUCTIONS HAVERI-585101.
9. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
INSTRUCTIONS BELGAUM-585101.
10. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
INSTRUCTIONS BALLARI-585101.
11. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
INSTRUCTIONS GADAG-585101.
12. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
INSTRUCTIONS KOPPALA-585101.
13. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
INSTRUCTIONS, U.K.DIST-585101.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. G.K.HIREGOUDAR, GOVT. ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI VIJAYA KUMAR S HALLUR
S/O SRI SHANKARAPPA HALLUR
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
ASSISTANT TEACHER, GLPS, UPNAL
HUNAGUNDA TALUK, BAGALKOTA DIST.
R/A. HIREBADWADAGI, HUNGAUNDA TALUK,
BAGALKOTA DISTRICT-587 101.
2. SRI BASAPPA SANGANABASAPPA SUNKAD
S/O SRI SANGANABASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
ASSISTANT TEACHER,
HPS HIREMAGI HUNAGUNDA TALUKA,
BAGALKOTE DISTRICT
R/A.NIMBALAGUNDI, AIHOLE POST,
HUNAGUNDA TALUK,
BAGALKOTA DISTRICT-587101
3. SRI SIDDANNA SHIDLINGAPPA GOUDAR
S/O SRI SHIDLINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11138-DB
WP No. 102652 of 2022
ASSISTANT TEACHER,
HPS JALAGERI, BADAMI TALUK,
BAGALKOTE DISTRICT,
R/A. KERAKALMATTI, BADAMI TALUK,
BAGALKOTA DISTRICT-587101
4. SRI GURUSIDDAYYA SHIVARUDRAYYA HIREMATH
S/O SRI SHIVARUDRAYYA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
ASSISTANT TEACHER,
HPS GOVANAKOPPA, BADAMI TALUK,
BAGALKOTE DISTRICT-587155,
R/A.HADALI, NARAGUNDA TALUK,
GADAG DISTRICT-582 101.
5. SRI CHANDRASHEKAR ANDANAPPA
NINGADALI S/O.ANDANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
ASSISTANT TEACHER, HPS NEERALA KOPPA,
KUSHTAGI TALUK, KOPPALA DISTRICT-583231
6. SRI YELLAPPPA BHEEMAPPA RAYANNAWAR
S/O.BHEEMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
ASSISTANT TEACHER, GLPS PURATGERI,
KUSHTAGI TALUK, KOPPALA DISTRICT,
R/A. HONGARAGI, BADAMI TALUK,
BAGALKOTA DISTRICT-587101
7. SRI SHARANABASAPPA BASALINGAPPA HAWALDAR
S/O SRI BASALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
ASSISTANT TEACHER, GHPS KABBARAGI,
KUSHTAGI TALUK, KOPPALA DISTRICT,
R/A. WARD NO.05, HOUSE NO.437/2A/10/1,
MAHANATHA NAGAR, HUNAGUNDA TALUK,
BAGAKOTA DISTRICT-587101
8. SRI BASAVARAJ MAHANATHAPPA MERANALA
S/O SRI MAHANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
ASSISTANT TEACHER, GHPS NILOGAL,
KUSHTAGI TALUK, KOPPALA DISTRICT,
R/A. WARD NO.05, HOUSE NO.437/2A/10/1,
MAHANATHA NAGAR, HUNAGUNDA TALUK,
BAGALKOTA DISTRICT-587101
9. SRI ABDUL REHAMAN ISAMIL,
S/O SRI A I SAYED AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
ASSISTANT TEACHER GUHPS KALADAGI,
BAGALKOTA TALUK & DISTRICT,
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11138-DB
WP No. 102652 of 2022
R/A.KALADAGI, PENDARA GALLI,
BAGALKOTA TALUKA AND DISTRICT-587101
10. SRI ABDUL GHANI HUSAIN SAB MULLA
S/O SRI SEDJI MULLA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
ASSISTANT TEACHER, GUPS CHIKKAMYAGERI,
BAGALKOTA TALUK AND DISTRICT,
R/A. WARD NO.6A, C/O.A.H.MULLA AMAN COLONY,
SEDJI MALLA J.M.ROAD, VIJAYAPURA TALUK &
DISTRICT-577101
11. SRI MAHADEVAPPA CHANNA BASAPPA NEKAR,
S/O SRI CHENNA BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
ASSISTANT TEACHER, HPS HIRENERTHI,
KUNDGOL TALUK, DHARWAD DISTRICT,
R/A.KERIKATTI HONI, MALAPURA,
DHARWAD DISTRICT-581113
12 . SRI RAJKUMAR IRAPPA GADAGIN,
S/O SRI IRAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
GHPKGS AMMINABHAVI, DHARWADA TALUK,
R/A.TIVARI CHALA, COURT ROAD,
LINE BAZAR, DHRAWADA,
DHARWAD DISTRICT-581113
13 . SMT PREMADANAPPA KALYANI SHETTI
W/O SRI M C KUBSAD, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
ASST. TEACHER, HPKGS AMMINBHAVI,
DHARWAD TALUK AND DISTRICT,
R/A.1ST CROSS, RENUKANAGAR,
SAVADATTI ROAD, DHARWAD DISTRICT-581106
14. SRI IRAPPA VIRUPAKSHAPPA RAMPUR
S/O SRI VIRUPAKSHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
ASSISTANT TEACHER, HPS INGALAGI,
KUNDGOL TALUK, DHARWAD DISTRICT,
R/A.HOSA HANCHIHAL, KAMDOLI POST,
KUNDGOL TALUK, DHARWAD DIST-581113
15 . SRI BASAPPA BASAVANNEPPA KUNDRANADA
S/O SRI BASAVANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
ASSISTANT TEACHER, GUHPS, INGALAGI,
KUNDGOL TALUK, DHARWAD DISTRICT,
R/A.C/O.SNAGAPPA PUTTI HOUSE,
KRISHNAPURA 2 ND CROSS,
OLD HUBLI, HUBLI TALUK,
DHARWAD DISTRICT-581113
16. SRI SUBHAS C ANGADI,
-5-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11138-DB
WP No. 102652 of 2022
S/O SRI CHANDRAKANTH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
ASSISTANT TEACHER, MLPS, KARANJAL,
KHANAPUR TALUK, BELGAUM DISTRICT,
R/A. PARISHWAD AT AND POST,
KHANAPURA TALUK, BELGAUM DISTRICT-581113
17. SRI NAGRAJ V RAGHAPPANAVAR,
S/O SRI VAHUPALAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
ASSISTANT TEACHER, GHPS CHAVADAL
SAVANUR TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT,
R/A. GUDAGERI AT AND POST,
KUNDGOL TALUK, DHARWAD DISTRICT-580001
18. SRI S. S. PATIL, S/O SRI S PATIL,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
ASSISTANT TEACHER, HPS KAMANAHALLI,
SHIGGAVI TALUK HAVERI DISTRICT,
R/A.C/O.SHUSEELA S PATIL, CHALLAL
AT AND POST, SAVANUR TALUK,
HAVERI DISTRICT-581113
19. SMT SHOBHA JOSHEP KONGANNAVAR,
D/O SRI KONGANNAVAR, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
ASSISTANT TEACHER, GHP SCHOOL NO. II,
KUNDGOL TALUK, DHARWAD DISTRICT,
R/A.SHOBA PERERIRA, G-4, KALAYANI KOMFORTS,
ARIHANATH NAGAR, KESHWAPUR HUBLI,
DHARWAD DISTRICT-581113
20 . SMT SHAKAMBARI V JOSHI,
D/O SRI S V JOSHI AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
ASST. TEACHER, LPS, ALLPUR,
KUNDGOL TALUK, DHARWAD DISTRICT,
R/A.C/O.P.H. PATIL, ATLANTA LAYOUT,
MANOJ PARK, SULLA ROAD, HUBLI-580023
21. SMT GURAVVA BASAPPA CHABBI,
D/O SRI BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
ASSISTANT TEACHER GHPS PAHUPATHI HALL,
KUNDGOL TALUK, DHARWAD DISTRICT,
R/A.LOKURA, DHARWAD TALUK,
DHARWAD DISTRICT-581113
22 . SRI VENKATESH SRINIVAS SULLAD,
S/O SRI SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
ASSISTANT TEACHER, HPS, RAMANKAPPA,
KUNDGOL TALUK, DHARWAD DISTRICT,
R/A. V.S.SULLAD, VIJAYANAGAR,
HUBLI TALUK, DHARWAD-580032
-6-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11138-DB
WP No. 102652 of 2022
23 . SMT VANDANA G DIXIT,
D/O SRI GURBIUGAPPA BIJJUR
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
ASSISTANT TEACHER, HPS,
GURUVINAHALLI, KUNDGOLD TALUK,
DHARWAD DISTRICT, R/A.NO.9,
SURABHI NAGAR, NIKETAN PARK,
TRINITY LAYOUT GOKUL ROAD,
DHARWAD DISTRICT-581113
24 . SMT KALPANA C CHANDNAKAR,
D/O SRI CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
ASSISTANT TEACHER, HPS,
VEERAPURA, DHARWAD TALUK,
DHARWAD DISTRICT, R/A. 4 TH CROSS,
DHANESHWARI NAGAR,
VIDYAGIRI, DHARWAD DISTRICT-580004
25 . SMT GIRIJA G SIDRAMAYYANAMATH,
D/O SRI GIRAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
ASSISTANT TEACHER, GHPS,
KENCHARAMANAHALA, SAVADATTI TALUK,
BELGAUM DISTRICT, R/A.UPPINA BETGERI
AT AND POST, DHARWAD TALUK,
DHARWAD DISTRICT-581113
26 . SMT A B KANETAKAR, D/O SRI BEERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
ASSISTANT TEACHER, HPS KUNDAGOL,
KUNDGOL TALUK, DHARWAD DISTRICT,
R/A.NOOVLI AT AND POST, HUBLI TALUK,
DHARWAD DISTRICT 581113
27 . SRI I S BOMMANAGOUDA,
S/O SRI SHANKARAGOUDA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
ASSISTANT TEACHER,MPS UNAKAL,
HUBLI TALUK, DHARWAD DISTRICT,
R/A. HOUSE NO.22, BANASHANKARI NILAYA,
SAI COLONY, SAINAGAR ROAD,
UNAKAL, HUBLI, DHARWAD DISTRICT 581113
28 . SRI GURUNATAH Y PADASUNGI,
S/O SRI YALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
ASSISTANT TEACHER, GHPS, NO.3,
GHPS NO. 3 MORAB, NAVALGUNDA TALUK,
DHARWAD DISTRICT 581113
29. SRI ANAND B JOGIHALLI,
S/O SRI BASAVANAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
ASSISTANT TEACHER, GHPS, HIREHALLI,
-7-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11138-DB
WP No. 102652 of 2022
BYADAGI TALUK, DHARWAD DISTRICT,
R/A. HIREHALLI, BYADAGI TALUK,
DHARWAD DISTRICT 581113
30 . SRI SUMAN PUNITH,
S/O SRI PUNITH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
ASSISTANT TEACHER, GHPS,
GUNDENAHALLI BYADAGI TALUK,
DHARWAD DISTRICT 581113
31 . SMT VIDYA R BHAT,
D/O SRI RAMAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
ASSISTANT TEACHER, GHPS, AGADI,
HUBLI TALUK, DHARWAD DISTRICT,
R/A.HOUSE NO.23, RAJANAGAR,
REVENUE COLONY, HUBLI TALUKA
AND DISTRICT 581113
32 . SRI HEMAIAH V GADDIBASLAPURA MATH,
S/O SRI VENKAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
ASSISTANT TEACHER, GHPS,
AVARAMALLAHALLI, HANAGAL TALUK,
DHARWADA DISTRICT, R/A. AVARMALLAHALLI,
HANAGALL TALUK, DHARWAD DISTRICT 581113
33 . SMT SUJATHA S ANGADI,
D/O SRI SHREE PALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
ASSISTANT TEACHER, GHPS BHANDIVAADA,
HUBLI RURAL, DHARWAD, R/A.SHREE PAD,
MIG-158, KHB COLONY, AMARGOL,
NAVANAGAR, HUBALI, DHARWAD DISTRICT 580025
34 . SMT SHANKUNTHALA P HIREMATH,
D/O SRI PATHADAYYA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
ASSISTANT TEACHER, GHPS VASAN,
NARAGUNDA TALUK, GADAG DISTRICT,
R/A.KONNURU AT & POST NARAGUNDA TALUK,
GADAG DISTRICT 582206
35 . SRI CHANNABASAPPA S TOTAPPANAVAR,
S/O SRI SHIVAPUTRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
ASSISTANT TEACHER, GHPS KANAGINAHAL,
GADAG TALUK, GADAG DISTRICT,
R/A. C/O.SHEGADI, S.B.NAGAR,
BETAGERI, GADAG DISTRICT 561204
36 . SMT YASHODHA Y KOLLI,
D/O SRI YELLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
-8-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11138-DB
WP No. 102652 of 2022
ASSISTANT TEACHER, UBS,
KOCHALAPUR RON TALUK,
GADAG DISTRICT-582209,
R/A.SIDDRODA NAGAR, ABBIGERI,
RON TALUK, GADAG DISTRICT-561204.
37 . SRI FAYAZAHMAD MALIK SAHEB ITAGI,
S/O SRI MALLIK SAHEB AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
ASSISTANT TEACHER, HPS,
MALLASAMUDRA, GADAG TALUK,
GADAG DISTRICT 582209,
R/A. NEAR MILK DAIRY, GADAG TALUK
AND DISTRICT-561 204.
38 . SRI V K PATTANASHETTI,
S/O SRI KALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
ASSISTANT TEACHER, TGMCS SHIROLA,
NARAGUNDA TALUK GADAG DISTRICT,
R/A.MENSHIGI, RONA TALUK, GADAG DIST.561204
39 . SRI SUDARSHANA CHARYA S DIVAGNACHARI,
S/O SRI SHIVAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
ASSISTANT TEACHER, GLPS NELOGOL,
SHIRAHATTI TALUK, GADAG DISTRICT,
R/A.NELOGOL, SHIRAHATTI TALUK,
GADAG DISTRICT 561204
40. SMT SHUSHEELA S CHANNALLI,
D/O SRI SHEKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
ASSISTANT TEACHER, GHPS,
BENKANAKOPPA, NARGUNDA TALUK,
GADAG DISTRICT, R/A.KHB COLONY,
SAVADATTI ROAD, NARAGUNDA TALUK,
GADAG DIST. 561004
41 . SMT SUMANGALA V ABBIGERI,
W/O SRI MOHAMMED JAMEER MULLA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
ASSISTANT TEACHER, GKHPS,
HOSANEERALAGI, SAVANURU TALUK,
HAVERI DISTRICT, R/A. HOUSE NO.228,
7TH CROSS, BEHIND SANA COLLEGE,
HUBBLI, DHARWADA DISTRICT 561204
42 . SRI SYED NOORUDDIN SIRKHAZI,
S/O SRI NOORUDDIN, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
ASSISTANT TEACHER, LPUBS KANAVALLI,
HAVERI TALUK AND DISTRICT,
R/A. GURUBHAVAN, GANAJURU,
HAVERI TALUK AND DISTRICT 581110
-9-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11138-DB
WP No. 102652 of 2022
43 . SRI FAKKIRASHETTI S ANGADI,
S/O SRI SHIVAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
ASSISTANT TEACHER, GHPS, KUDALA,
HANGAL TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT,
R/A.KUDALA HANGAL TALUK,
HAVERI DISTRICT 581110
44 . SRI MANJAPPA B AMARAVATHI,
S/O SRI BHEEMAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
ASSISTANT TEACHER, GHPS, HIREHALLI,
BYADAGI TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT,
R/A. VIDYANAGAR 3RD CROSS, BYADAGI,
HAVERI DIST. 581110
45 . SMT NAGARATHNA D GUDAGI,
D/O SRI DEVENDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
ASSISTANT TEACHER, GHPS, MALLURU,
BYADAGI TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT,
RA. MALLURU, BYADAGI TALUK,
HAVERI DISTRICT 581110
46 . SRI PARASHURUAM H KADATI,
S/O SRI HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
ASSISTANT TEACHER, GHPS, BELUR,
RANEBENNUR TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT,
R/A. 7TH CROSS, B BLOCK, SHABARI NAGAR,
HUNSHIKATTI ROAD, RANEBENNUR TALUK,
HAVERI DISTRICT 581110
47. SRI CHENNAGOUDA B RAMALINGANNAVAR,
S/O SRI BASANAGOUDA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
ASSISTANT TEACHER GLPS, JANATA PLOT,
MOTEBENNUR, BYADAGI TALUK,
HAVERI DISTRICT, R/A. RAMALINGNNAVAR,
SRI RAM NAGAR, 6TH CROSS, RANIBENNUR TALUK,
HAVERI DISTRICT 581110
48 . SRI NAGARAJA G PURADAL,
S/O SRI GADIGEPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
ASSISTANT TEACHER, GHPS, JOGIHALLI,
CHIKKERUR POST, HIREKERUR TALUK,
HAVERI DISTRICT, R/A NITTUR, MADLUR,
HIREKERUR, HAVERI DISTRICT 581110
49 . SRI HANUMANTHAGOUDA B SANTHANAGOUDAR,
S/O SRI BASANGOUDA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
ASSISTANT TEACHER GLPS, ALADAGERI,
HIREKERUR TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT,
R/A SATTAGIHALLI, SHIRGAMBI POST,
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11138-DB
WP No. 102652 of 2022
RATTI HALLI TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT 581110
50 . SRI NAGAPPA S HEGGERI,
S/O SRI SHIDDALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
ASSISTANT TEACHER, GLPS, ALADAKATTI,
HIREKERUR TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT,
R/A RAGHAVENDRA COLONY, HIREKERURU TALUK,
HAVERI DIST 581110
51. SMT AKKAMAHADEVI R PILIGIMATH
D/O SRI RACHAYYA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
ASSISTANT TEACHER, GHPS YATTINAHALLI
RANEBENNUR TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT,
R/A. RAJESHWARI NAGAR, 6TH CROSS,
RANEBENNUR TALUK AT POST, HAVERI DISTRICT 581110
52 . SRI CHNADRAGOUDA S PATIL,
S/O SRI SHIDDANAGOUDA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
ASSISTANT TEACHER, GHPS, KONANATAMBIGI,
HAVERI TALUK AND DISTRICT,
R/A. KOKKRAGONDI, KONCHIGERI,
SHIRAHATTI, GADAG DIST.561204
53 . SRI GUDDAPPA N NARTI,
S/O SRI NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
ASSISTANT TEACHER, GHPS, KODBALA,
HAVERI TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT,
R/A. HOSARITTI, HAVERI TALUK, HAVERI DIST. 581110
54 . SRI MAHALINGAPPA H BAJJI,
S/O SRI HEMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
ASSISTANT TEACHER, GHPS HULIKATTI,
RANIBENNUR TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT,
R/A. HOUSING COLONY, HOUSE NO.61,
MEDLERI ROAD, RANEBENNUR, HAVERI DIST. 581110
55 . SMT LAXMAVVA S NANDIGAVI,
D/O SRI SHIVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
ASSISTANT TEACHER, GHPS,
GUDIHONNATHI, RANBENNUR TALUK,
HAVERI DISTRICT, R/A VIDYA NAGAR,
4 TH CROSS, RANEBENNUR TALUK,
HAVERI DIST 581110
56 . SRI NAGANGOUDA G HANUMAGOUDAR,
S/O SRI GOVINDA GOUDA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
ASSISTANT TEACHER, GHPS, SHIRAMAPURA,
HAVERI TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT,
R/A. MACHAPURA
AT AND POST HAVERI TALUK & DIST.581110.
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11138-DB
WP No. 102652 of 2022
57 . SMT ANASUYA S HONNATTI,
D/O SRI SHARANAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
ASSISTANT TEACHER, GHPS, NEGALUR,
HAVERI TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT,
R/A.NEGALURU, HAVERI TALUK
HAVERI DISTRICT 581110
58. SRI MRUTYNJAYA R HIREMATH,
S/O SRI RACHAYYA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
ASSISTANT TEACHER, GLPS, CHILLURU,
SAVANURU TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT,
R/A. TEACHER COLONY,
SAVANURU TALUK,
HAVERI DISTRICT 581110
59. SRI SHIVAPPA Y MAGUNDANAVAR,
S/O SRI YAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
ASSISTANT TEACHER, GLPS,
CHILLUR BADNI TANDA, SAVANUR TALUK,
HAVERI DISTRICT, R/A. TEACHERS COLONY,
SAVANURU, HAVERI DIST. 581110
60. SRI BASANGOUDA K VEERABASAPPANAVRA,
S/O SRI KAREGOUDA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
ASSISTANT TEACHER GHPUBS NAREGAL,
HANAGAL TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT,
R/A. ITAGI AT AND POST, RANEBENNURU TALUK,
HAVERI DIST 581110
61. SRI PRAVEENA KUMARF B GULDALLI,
S/O SRI BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
ASSISTANT TEACHER, GHPS, KAGINELE,
KAGINCLE POST, BYADAGI TALUK,
HAVERI DISTRICT, R/A MADHUR CHAWLA HIREKERUR,
HAVERI DISTRICT 581110
62. SMT G SHANTAMMA, W/O SRI M C ARALIKATTI,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, ASSISTANT TEACHER,
GHPS, MEDLERI, RANEBENNURU TALUK,
HAVERI DISTRICT, R/A.CHOWDESHWARI NAGAR,
4TH CROSS, RANIBENNURU,
HAVERI DISTRICT 581208
63 . SRI SIDDAPPA T NAGANNAVAR,
S/O SRI TIRAKAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
ASST. TEACHER, GHPS, KENGONDA,
BYADAGI TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT,
R/A.S.T.NAGANNAVAR, MAHADEV MAILAR
NAGAR, MOTEBENNUR, BYADAGI TALUK
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11138-DB
WP No. 102652 of 2022
HAVERI DISTRICT 581106
64 . SRI KUPPERAO THIRUMALA
S/O SRI THIRUMALA RAO AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
ASST.TEACHER,GHPS KORADAKERA,
KUSHTAGI TALUK,
KOPPALA DISTRICT,
R/A.C/O.SIDDANAGOUDA V MALIPATILA,
VIDYANAGAR POST, KUSHTAGI POST,
KOPPALA DISTRICT 583277
65 . SRI SIDDANAGOUDA VIRUPAKSHAGOUDA
MALITPATIL S/O SRI VIRUPAKSHAGOUDA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
ASST. TEACHER, GHPS NEREBENCH,
KUSHTAGI TALUK, KOPPALA DISTRICT,
R/A. VIDYANAGAR, KUSHTAGI TALUK,
KOPPALA DISTRICT 583277
66. SRI CHANDRASHEKARAYYA,
S/O SRI CHANNAYYA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
ASST. TEACHER, GLPS, RAMPUR,
KUSHTAGI TALUK, KOPPALA DISTRICT,
R/A.RAMPUR, KUSTHAGI TALUK,
KOPPALA DISTRICT 583277
67 . SRI BASAPPA M BANNIGOLA,
S/O SRI MALAKAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
ASST. TEACHER, LPS, ADAVABHAVI,
KUSHTAGI TALUK, KOPPALA DISTRICT,
R/A.RAMPUR, KUSHTAGI TALUK,
KOPPALA DISTRICT 583277
68 . SRI GANESH M DESAI,
S/O SRI MADHAVARAO DESAI AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
ASST. TEACHER, HPS KURBANAL,
KUSTAGI TALUK, KOPPAL DISTRICT,
R/A.KURUBANAL, KUSHTAGI,
KOPPALA DISTRICT 583277
69 . SRI VEERANNAGOUDA K NIMBANAGOUDAR
S/O SRI KALAKANAGOUDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
ASST. TEACHER, GHPS, JULAKATTI, YALABURGA TALUK,
KOPPAL DISTRICT, R/A.JANATHA
PLOT NO.56, YALABURGA TALUK,
KOPPALA DISTRICT 583277
70 . SRI SHIVAPUTRAPPA G MUTTALA,
S/O SRI GURUSIDAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
ASST. TEACHER, GHPS, BALAGERI, Y
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11138-DB
WP No. 102652 of 2022
ELBURGA TALUK, KOPPALA DISTRICT,
R/A.BINNALA VILLAGE AND POST,
YALABURGA TALUK, KOPPAL DISTRICT 583277
71 . SRI RAMAPPA C MUTTAL,
S/O SRI CHANNABASAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
ASST. TEACHER, GHPS, YADIYAPUR,
YALBURGA TALUK, KOPPAL DISTRICT,
R/A. MARUTESHWARA NAGAR,
NEAR SFS SCHOOL, DYAMPUR CROSS,
KUKNOOR, YELBURGA,
KOPPAL DISTRICT 583277
72 . SRI ANDAPPA NINGAPPA GURIKARA,
S/O SRI NINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
ASST. TEACHER, GHPS,MUDHOL,
YELBURGA TALUK, KOPPALA DISTRICT,
R/A.HIRMYAGERI, NEAR SFS SCHOOL,
DYAMPUR CROSS, KUKNOOR, YELBURGA TALUK,
KOPPALA DISTRICT 583277
73 . SRI SHARANGOUDA G HALEGOUDRA,
S/O SRI GUDIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
ASST. TEACHER, HPS, BASAVANNA
CAMP TAVAREGERA, KUSHTAGI TALUK,
R/A.KADABALAKATTI,
YELBURGA TALUK, KOPPAL DISTRICT 583277
74. SRI SHIVALINGAYYA V BHUSNOORMATH,
S/O SRI VEERABHADRAYYA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
ASST. TEACHER, GHPS, KALABANDI,
KUSHTAGI TALUK, KOPPALA DISTRICT,
R/A. GOURINAGAR, KUSHTAGI TALUK,
KOPPALA DISTRICT 583277
75 . SRI SADASHIVAYYA CHINNAYYA SHIRUR,
S/O SRI CHINNAYYA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
ASST. TEACHER, GHPS, MIYAPURA,
KUSHTAGI TALUK, KOPPALA DISTRICT,
R/A.HOUSE NO.3428, VIDYA NAGAR,
HANUMASAGAR AT AND POST KUSHTAGI TALUK,
KOPPALA DISTRICT 583277
76 . SRI NAGARAJ JANADARI A M,
S/O SRI NEELAPPA JANADRI A M
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
ASST. TEACHER, GLPS, HONNAUNASHI,
YALABURGA TALUK, KOPPALA DISTRICT,
R/A.NEAR NAGARESHWARA TEMPLE, KINNAL,
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11138-DB
WP No. 102652 of 2022
KOPPALA DISTRICT 583230
77. SRI MUDUKAPPA KANTEPPA KANDGAL A M,
S/O SRI KANTAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
ASST. TEACHER, GHPS, KADARALLI,
YELBURGI TALUK,
KOPPALA DISTRICT, R/A.KADARALLI,
YELBURGA TALUK,
KOPPALA DISTRICT 583277
78 . SMT SHANATAMMA G,
W/O SRI GANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
ASST. TEACHER, GHPS HOSAGARAG,
HOSPETE TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT,
R/A.BELUR HOSPETE TALUK,
BALLARI DIST.583101
79. SRI B A KAMBLE,
S/O SRI ARJUN KALLAPPA KAMBLE,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, ASST. TEACHER,
GHPS, TUBACHI, JAMAKHANDI TALUK,
BAGALKOT DISTRICT, R/A.WARD NO.2,
KAMBLE GALLI, MUDHOL AT AND POST,
BAGALKOT DISTRICT 587101
80 . SMT SUVARNA IRAPPA NUCHI,
W/O SRI ERAPPA SIKARAPPA NUCHI,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, ASST. TEACHER,
GHPS RAMAPURA JAMAKHANDI TALUK,
BAGALKOT DISTRICT, R/A.SRISAINAGAR,
JAGADAL ROAD BANAHALLI, JAMAKHANDI TALUK,
BAGALKOT DISTRICT 587101
81. SRI SHIVANANDAIAH MADIVALAYYA HIREMATH,
S/O SRI MADIVALAYYA HIREMATH,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, ASST. TEACHER,
GLPS TAKKALAKI, JAMAKANDI TALUK,
BAGALKOT DIST R/A.SAVALAGI,
JAMAKANDI TALUK, BAGALKOT DIST 587101
82 . SMT S V SAVADI,
W/O SRI VIJYAYRAO K SAVADI,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, ASST. TEACHER,
GLPS, AJADNAGAR, JAMAKANDI TALUK,
BAGALKOT DISTRICT, R/A.ALIKIGALLI,
JAMAKANDI TALUK, BAGALKOT DISTRICT 587101
- 15 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11138-DB
WP No. 102652 of 2022
83. SMT K H KULAKARNI,
W/O. SRI HANUMANTHARAO KULKARNI
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
ASST. TEACHER, GHPS, GANESHNAVARA TOTA,
MADURA KANDI, JAMAKANDI TALUK,
BAGALKOT DISTRICT, R/A. NEAR JAGADA YELLAMMA
DEVI TEMPLE, JAMAKANDI TALUK,
BAGALKOT DISTRICT 587101
84. SMT VIJAYALAKSHMI SIDDALINGAPPA DURGI,
W/O SRI SIDDALINGAPPA G DURGI,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
ASST. TEACHER, GLPS KITTURU TOTA HIPPARGI,
JAMAKANDI TALUK, BAGALKOT DISTRICT,
R/A.NEAR JAGADAL YELLAMMA TEMPLE,
JAMAKHANDI TALUK, BAGALKOT DISTRICT 587101
85 . SMT NIJABUNNISH G HANAGANDI,
W/O SRI GUDUSAB HANAGANDI,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, ASST. TEACHER,
GHPS, SASALATII TOTA NO.2, JAMAKANDI TALUK,
BAGALKOT DISTRICT, R/A.N.G.HANAGANDI,
BNK HIGH SCHOOL, MUGUL KODA,
RAYBAG TALUK, BELGAUM DISTRICT 590001
86. SMT SHARADA KALLAPPA KORI,
W/O SRI BALACHANDRA S GALAGALI,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, ASST. TEACHER,
GHPS, YELLAHATTI, JAMAKANDI TALUK,
BAGALKOT DISTRICT, R/A. VENKATESHWARA COLONY,
3RD CROSS, AP HUNNURU, JAMKANDI TALUK
BAGALKOT DISTRICT 587101
87. SRI KRISHNA YELLAPPA MANNODDAR,
S/O SRI YELLAPPA MANNODAR,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
ASSISTANT TEACHER GHPS BANDIGANI,
JAMAKANDI TALUK, BAGALKOT DISTRICT,
R/A. ADVISANGAPURA AT AND POST,
BABALESHWARA TALUK VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT 562135
88 . SRI S G ARAKERI,
S/O. SRI GANGAPPA SIDDAPPA ARKERI
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, ASSISTANT TEACHER,
GHPS, MATAPAHTI VASTHI KONNUR,
JAMAKANDI TALUK, BAGALKOT DISTRICT,
R/A.MOMINAGALLI, JAMAKANDI TALUK,
BAGALKOT DISTRICT 587101
- 16 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11138-DB
WP No. 102652 of 2022
89 . SRI ASHOK GANAPATHI VIDATHE,
S/O SRI GANAPATHI S VIDATHE,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, ASSISTANT TEACHER,
GHPS BANDIGANI CROSS, JAMAKANDI TALUK,
BAGALKOT DISTRICT, R/A.NEAR JAGADEESHWARA
TEMPLE, KADAPATTI AT AND POST JAMAKANDI
TALUK, BAGALKOT DISTRICT 587101
90. SRI S. N. KAMBLE, S/O SRI N G KAMBLE,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, ASSISTANT TEACHER,
GHPS MANTUR, JAMAKANDI TALUK,
BAGALKOT DISTRICT, R/A.RAGHAVENDRA COLONY,
JAMAKANDI TALUK, BAGALKOT DISTRICT 587101
91. SRI J B GUDI, S/O SRI B T GUDI,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS ASST. TEACHER,
GHPS MAREGUDDI, JAMAKANDI TALUK,
BAGALKOT DISTRICT, R/A.MAREGUDDI,
JAMAKANDI TALUK, BAGALKOT DISTRICT 587101
92 . SMT SHUSHEELA BAI J KULAKARNI,
W/O SRI JEEVAJI RAO B KULKARNI,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, ASST. TEACHER,
GHPS, HULYAL, JAMKANDI TALUK,
BAGALKOT DISTRICT,
R/A.JAGADA YELLAMMA TEMPLE,
JAMAKANDI TALUK, BAGALKOT DIST 587101
93. SRI YELLAPPA SANGAPPA BALAVADA,
S/O SRI ARJUN BALAVAD AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
ASSISTANT TEACHER, GHPS NAVALAGI
JAMAKANDI TALUK, BAGALKOT DISTRICT,
R/A.NAVALAGI, JAMAKANDI TALUK,
BAGALKOT DISTRICT 587101
94. SRI P THOTAPPA, S/O SRI NINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS ASST. TEACHER,
GLPS, SOOLADAHALLI, GOLLARAHATTI,
KUDLAGI TALUK, BELLARI 583135
95. SMT G S GEETHARANI,
W/O SRI CHANNABASAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
ASST. TEACHER, GHPS,
LOTTANAKERI KUDLAGI TALUK,
BELLARI 583135
96. SMT M SUDHA, W/O SRI CHINNAYYA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS ASST. TEACHER,
GAHPS, K AYYANAHALLI, KUDLAGI TALUK,
BELLARI 583135
- 17 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11138-DB
WP No. 102652 of 2022
97. SMT K VEERAMMA, W/O SRI REVANASIDDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, ASST. TEACHER,
GHPS, HYALYA, KUDLAGI TALUK,
BELLARI 583135
98. SMT A GOWRAMMA,
W/O SRI MALLIKARJUNA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, ASST. TEACHER,
GHPS, KALAPURA, KUDLAGI TALUK,
BELLARI 583135
99. SMT I S PADMAVATHI,
D/O SRI VENKATASHETTI
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
ASST. TEACHER, GHPS,
GANAGATTA, KUDLAGAI TALUK,
BELLARI 583135
100. SMT D B BASAMMA,
W/O. SRI D B CHENNABASAPP
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
ASST. TEACHER, GHPS, BELADERI,
KUDLAGI TALUK, BELLARI 583 135.
101. SMT B R MANJULA,
W/O SRI T CHENNABASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
ASST. TEACHER, GHPS, HUDERI,
KUDLAGI TALUK, BELLARI 583135
102 . SMT P GOWRAMMA,
W/O SRI. B. H. MANJUNATHA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
ASSISTANT TEACHER GUHPS, UTTANGI,
HADAGALI TALUK, BELLARI 583219
103 . SRI K S M YARISWAMY,
S/O. SRI. S. M. KOTRAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
ASSISTANT TEACHER, GSHPS, SOGI,
HADAGALI TALUK, BELLARI 583219
104. SRI B M PAMPAPATHI, S/O SRI. B. M. KOTRAIAH
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
ASST. MASTER, GHPS, NAGATHI BASSAPURA,
HADAGALI TALUK, BELLARI 583219
105. SRI G NAGARAJA, S/O SRI KOTRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER,
GHPS, CHIKKAKOLACHI, HADAGALI TALUK, BELLARI 583219
- 18 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11138-DB
WP No. 102652 of 2022
106. SMT K A SAVITRAMMA, D/O SRI. ANANDAPPA V. M.
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
ASST. MASTER, GHPS, AMMANAKERI,
KUDLAGI TALUK, BELLARI 583219
107. SMT J M HALAMMA, W/O SRI B M SHIVAMURTHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
ASST. MASTER, GHPS, CHIRIBI,
KUDLAGI TALUK, BELLARI 583219
108. SMT S R KARIBASAMMA, W/O SRI. J. BASAVARAJU
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
ASST. MASTER,GHPS, J MYASARAHATTI,
KUDLAGI TALUK, BELLARI 583219
109. SMT G NIRMALA, W/O SRI G K JAGADISH
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
ASST. MASTER, GHPS KM HALLI, KUDLAGI TALUK,
BELLARI 583219
110. SRI G CHANDRAPPA, S/O SRI KOTRAPPA G
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, ASST. MASTER,
GHPS, SUMKADAKALLU, KUDLAGI TALUK,
BELLARI 583219
111. SRI. M. BULLAPPA, S/O SRI M SHIVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
ASST. MASTER, GHPS, GANGAMMANAHALLI,
KUDLAGI TALUK, BELLARI 583219
112 . SMT K RENUKAMMA, W/O SRI KOTRAPPA H
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
ASST. MASTER, GHPS, JOLADAKUDLAGI,
KUDLAGI TALUK, BELLARI 583219
113. SRI. K. YARIBASAPPA, S/O SRI K BASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, ASST. MASTER,
GHPS, A D GUDDA THANDA, KUDLAGI TALUK,
BELLARI 583219
114. SRI P SIDDESHWARA GOWDA,
S/O SRI REVANNA GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, ASST. MASTER,
GHPS, TUPPANAYAKANA HALLI,
KUDLAGI TALUK, BELLARI 583219
115 . SRI G K PRAKASH, S/O. SRI KAREGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, PHYSICAL
EDUCATION TEACHER, GHPS, GUDI,
- 19 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11138-DB
WP No. 102652 of 2022
UJJANI, KUDLAGI TALUK, BELLARI 583219
116. SRI G SIDDAPPA, S/O SRI G GURUSIDDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, ASSISTANT MISTRESS,
GLPS, GULEDA HALLI THANDA,
HARAPANAHALLI TALUK, BELLARI 583219
117 . SRI K MOHAN, S/O SRI SHIVALINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
ASST. MASTER,GHPS, TAVARAGONDI
HARAPPANAHALLI TALUK, BELLARI 583219
118. SRI. P. SOMASHEKAPRAPPA,
S/O SRI SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
ASST. MASTER, GLPS, BALIGANOORU,
HARAPPANAHALLI TALUK, BELLARI 583219
119 . SRI K MOOGAPPA,
S/O SRI CHINNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
ASST. MASTER, GHPS, HUNASIHALLI,
HARAPANAHALLI TALUK, BELLARI 583219
120. SRI. G. T. RAMANJANEYA,
S/O SRI. M. G. TIMMAREDDY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER SRI.
GANESHMATT JAIN GIRLS, GHPS,
MARIYAMMANAHALLI HOSAPETE TALUK,
BELLARI 583219
121. SMT. R. RENUKA,
W/O SRI. P. VEERABADARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, ASST. MASTER, GLPS,
HES, TB DAM, HOSPETE, HOSPETE TALUK,
BELLARI 583219
122. SRI. K. VEERABHADRAPPA,
S/O SRI K PATRAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
ASST. MASTER, GHPS, NANDIBANDI,
HOSAPETE TALUK, BELLARI 583219
123. SRI. N. SHANKRAPPA,
S/O SRI HANUMATHAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
ASST. MASTER, GHPS, CHIKKAJAYAGANOORU,
HOSPATE TALUK, BELLARI 583219
124. SRI. SANJEEVAPPA,
S/O SRI B NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
ASST. MASTER, GHPS, MALLANAGUDI THANDA
HOSAPETE TALUK, BELLARI 583219
- 20 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11138-DB
WP No. 102652 of 2022
125. SMT B KASTURI,
W/O SRI CHENNESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.
ASST. MASTER, GHPS, AKC,
MARIYAMMANA HALLI, HOSAPETE TALUK,
BELLARI 583219
126. SRI P CHANDRAPPA,
S/O SRI P BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
ASST. MASTER, GHPS, BELAGUDAHAL,
HOSAPETE BELLARI 583219
127. SMT K. VEENA, W/O SRI RAJKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS ASST. MASTER,
GLPS, VYASANAKERE, HOSAPETE TALUK,
BELLARI 583219
128. SMT PADMAVATHI, W/O. SRI TUKARAM,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, ASST. MASTER, GHPS,
KAMALAPURA, HOSAPETE TALUK, BELLARI 583219
129 . SMT VIJAYALAKSHMI, W/O SRI SRINIVASA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, ASST. MASTER, GLPS,
88 MUDLAPURA, HOSAPETE TALUK, BELLARI 583219
130 . SMT S G ROOPA, W/O SRI R RAVINDRA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, ASST. MASTER,
GHPS, HAMPI, HOSAPETE TALUK,
BELLARI 583219
131. SMT C SHASHIREKHA, W/O. SRI C RAMASHETTY
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
ASST. MASTER, GHPS, KAMALAPURA,
HOSAPETE TALUK, BELLARI 583219
132. SMT. L. VIJAYAKUMARI,
W/O SRI K R KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
ASST. MASTER, GHPS,
TC KAMALAPURA, HOSAPETE TALUK,
BELLARI 583219
133. SMT G JAYALALITHA, W/O SRI BASAPPA CHILLALU
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
ASST. MASTER, GHPS, BADANOORU,
HADAGALI TALUK, BELLARI 583219
134. SMT S SHAILAJA,
W/O SRI LATE SHANTHANAGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
ASST. MASTER, GHPS, HADAGALI HADAGALI TALUK,
BELLARI 583219
- 21 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11138-DB
WP No. 102652 of 2022
135. SMT S SIDDALINGAMMA,
W/O SRI K SANNATIMMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, ASST. MASTER, GHPS,
HADAGALI, HADAGALI TALUK, BELLARI 583219
136 . SRI P YOGEESHA,
S/O SRI P NAGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, ASST. MASTER,
GHPS, HADAGALI, HADAGALI TALUK,
BELLARI 583219
137 . SMT U RENUKAVVA, W/O SRI P HALAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
ASST. MASTER, GHPS ITTAGI,
HADAGALI TALUK, BELLARI 583219
138. SRI. H. KOTRESHA, S/O SRI HALAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
ASST. MASTER, GHPS, V BASAPURATHANDA,
HADAGALI TALUK, BELLARI 583219
139. SMT LAXMIBAYI MALAKAJAPPA SOLAPUR
D/O SRI MALAKAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
ASST. MASTER, HPS CHIKKAMAGI,
HUNAGUNDA TALUK, BAGALKOT DISTRICT,
R/A.WARD NO.8, LAKSHMINAGAR,
KAMATAGI AT POST, HUNAGUNDA TALUK,
BAGALKOTE DISTRICT 587120
140. SMT PARVATHI BAI K PATTANASHETTI
D/O SRI KARIYAPPA PATTANASHETTI,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
ASST. MASTER, HPS, BUDIHALA (sk),
HUNAGUNDA TALUK, BAGALKOTA DISTRICT,
R/A.WARD NO.38, VIDYGIGI, BADAWANE,
ILKAL, HUNGUNDA TALUK, BAGALKOTA DISTRICT 587120
141 . SMT AMINA M HUNAGUNDA,
D/O SRI MEHABOOBA SAHEB
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
ASST. TEACHER, GUBH P S NO. 2,
ILKAL HUNAGUNDA TALUK,
BAGALKOTA DISTRICT,
R/A WARD NO.4, BORA PLOT,
HANAMSAGAR ROAD,
ILKAL AT POST, HUNAGUNDA TALUK,
BAGALKOTA DISTRICT 587180
142. SRI B ASHOK BASAVARAJ,
S/O. SRI BASAVARJ HALLI,
- 22 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11138-DB
WP No. 102652 of 2022
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
ASST. TEACHER, GHPS HIRESINGANAGUTTI,
GHPS, HIRESINGANAGUTTI,
HUNAGUNDA TALUK, BAGALKOTE DISTRICT
R/A.NEAR KEB WARD NO.3, ILKAL,
HUNAGUNDA TALUK,
BAGALKOTA DISTRICT 587180.
143. SMT SULOCHANA V BIRADAR,
D/O SRI VENKANAGOUDA BIRADARI,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,ASST. TEACHER,
GHPS, GORAJANAL, HUNAGUNDA TALUK,
BAGALKOTA DISTRICT, R/A.SULIBHAVI,
HUNAGUNDA TALUK, BAGALKOTA DIST 587180
144 . SRI BASAVARAJ S TOTAGER,
S/O SRI SAKRAPPA TOTAGER
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, ASST. TEACHER,
GHPS, KARADI, HUNAGUNDA TALUK,
BAGALKOTA DISTRICT,
R/A.MAHANTHANAGAR HUNAGUNDA TALUK,
BAGALKOTA DISTRICT 587180
145 . SRI BASANAGOUDA G GOUDAR,
S/O SRI GOUDAR AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
ASST. TEACHER, GMPS,
NAGAR, HUNAGUNDA TALUK,
BAGALKOTA DISTRICT,
R/A. NAGUR
AT AND POST HUNAGUNDA TALUK,
BAGALKOTA DISTRICT 587180
146. SRI SHIVAPPA MALLAPPA SUNKAD,
S/O SRI MALLAPPA SUNKAD,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
ASST. TEACHER, GHPS, BENAKANAWARI,
HUNAGUNDA TALUK, BAGALKOTA DISTRICT,
R/A.NIMBALGUNDI, HUNAGUNDA TALUK,
BAGALKOTA DIST 587180.
147. SRI IMAMBI A MANIYE R,
S/O SRI ABDUL RAHIM MANIYER
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
ASST. TEACHER, G.UBMPS, ILKAL
HUNAGUNDA TALUK, BAGALKOTA DISTRICT,
R/A ALAMPUR PETH WARD NO.7,
HUNAGUNDA TALUK, BAGALKOTA DISTRICT 587180
148 . SRI MALLIKARJUN CHANNVEERAPPA NAGATHAN,
S/O SRI CHANNVEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
- 23 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11138-DB
WP No. 102652 of 2022
ASSISTANT TEACHER, H P S MARADI BUDIHALA,
HUNAGUNDA TALUK, BAGALKOTA DISTRICT,
R/A.KUMATAGI, HUNAGUNDA TALUK,
BAGALKOTA DISTRICT 587180
149. SRI BASAVARAJA MAHANTHAPPA PATRI,
S/O SRI MAHANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
ASSISTANT TEACHER KBMPS AIHOLE,
HUNAGUNDA TALUK, BAGALKOTA DISTRICT,
R/A.SOOLE BHAVI, RHPS SCHOOL
NEAR HUNAGUNDA TALUK,
BAGALKOTA DISTRICT 587180
150. SRI BASAVARAJ VEERABHADRAPPA GOUDAR,
S/O SRI VEERABHADRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
ASSISTANT TEACHER H P S UGALWATA,
BADAMI TALUK, BAGALKOTA DISTRICT,
R/A. HOSPETI ONI, NEAR PATTARA KATTI,
BADAMI TALUK, BAGALKOTA DISTRICT 587180
151. SMT LATA GIRIYAPPA ITAGI,
D/O SRI GIRYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
ASSISTANT TEACHER, H P S GOVANAKOPPA
BADAMI TALUK, BAGALKOTA DISTRICT,
R/A.C/O.M.K.SUSANGI, GURU BASAV NILAYA,
URNAL CROSS, HUBLI, DHARWADA DISTRICT 580001
152 . SRI SHANKARAYYA ADVAYYA GURUSHANTANNANVAR
S/O SRI ADAVAYYA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
ASSISTANT TEACHER GHPS SULIKERI,
BADAMI TALUK, BAGALKOTA DISTRICT,
R/A. PL.NO.24, TAJ NAGAR, BANASHANKARI ROAD,
BADAMI, BAGALKOTA DISTRICT 587180
153. SRI BASANAGOUDA IRAPPA GOUDAR,
S/O SRI IRAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
ASSISTANT TEACHER, GHPS KATAPURA,
KUSTAGI, KOPPALA DISTRICT, R/A.ANTARATHANA,
KUSHTAGI TALUK, KOPPALA DISTRICT 583231
154 . SRI N S HIREMATH, S/O SRI SHARANABASAYYA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
ASST. TEACHER, KGS GIRISAGAR,
BILAGI TALUK, BAGALKOTA DISTRICT,
R/A. GIRISAGAR VILLAGE AND POST,
BILAGI TALUK, BAGALKOTA DISTRICT 587101
155 . SRI SHEKAR SANGAPPA PATIL,
S/O SRI M. N. SANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
- 24 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11138-DB
WP No. 102652 of 2022
ASST. TEACHER, GMPS BENNURU,
BAGALKOTA TALUK AND DISTRICT,
R/A.C/O.M.N.SANGAM,
RUDRAKSHI CHALL, SHANTHINAGAR,
BAGALKOTA DISTRICT 587101
156. SRI BASANAGOUDA RAMANGOUDA PATIL,
S/O SRI RAMANAGOUDA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
ASST. TEACHER GHPS JADRAMKUNTI,
BAGALKOTA TALUK AND DISTRICT,
R/A.TIMMAPUR, RAMPUR POST,
BAGALKOTA TALUK AND DISTRICT 587101
157. SRI SHEKARAYYA EARAYYA NANDIKOLAMATH
S/O SRI ERAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
ASST. TEACHER GHPS SANGAPURA,
BAGALKOTA TALUK AND DISTRICT,
R/A. BEVOORA AT AND POST,
BAGALKOTA TALUK AND DISTRICT 587101
158 . SRI MOHAMMED AYUB MOHAMMED YUSUF KHAN
S/O SRI M M KHAN, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
ASST. TEACHER GUHPS, NO.3,
HAVELI, BAGALKOTA TALUK AND DISTRICT,
R/A.TREASURY COLONY, NANDI NAGAR TAKKE ROAD,
BIJAPUR TALUK AND DISTRICT, KALADAGI,
BAGALKOTA TALUK AND DISTRICT 587101
159 . SMT AKKAMAHADEVI GANGADHARAPPA GANIGER
D/O SRI GANGADARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
ASSISTANT TEACHER, GHPGS, YAREGOPPA SP,
BADAMI TALUK, BAGALKOTA DISTRICT 582209,
R/A.BELURA, BADAMI TALUK,
BAGALKOTA DISTRICT-561 204
160. SRI ACHUTAKUMAR BASALING KUTAKOLI,
S/O SRI CHANNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
ASST. TEACHER GKHPS NANDAGAOV,
ATHANI TALUK, BELAGAVI DIST 587101
161. SRI ASHOK SHARANAPPA PANGI,
S/O SRI SHARANAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
ASST. TEACHER, KLPS,
GANI ATHANI TALUK,
BELGAUM DISTRICT,
R/A.DESARAYARAHATTI ATHANI TALUK,
BELAGAUM DISTRICT 590001
162. SRI SHIVAPPA BASAPPA PYATI,
S/O SRI BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
- 25 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11138-DB
WP No. 102652 of 2022
ASST. TEACHER, KLPS, KANAKA WADI,
RAIBAG TALUK, BELGAUM DISTRICT 590001
163 . SRI SUDHA NILKANATH BIJAPURA,
S/O SRI NILKANATH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
ASST. TEACHER, KHPS KARAVINKOP
KHANPURA TALUK, BELGAUM DISTRICT 590001
164. SRI RAVASAB RAMAPPA HIPPARAGI,
S/O SRI RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
ASST. MASTER, KHPS, KALKATTI
HALLAD THOTA, ATHANI TALUK,
BELAGAUM DISTRICT 590001
165. SMT LEELAVATHI GULABHSINGH RAJAPUTHA,
D/O SRI GULHSINGH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
ASST. TEACHER KHPS, GANDHINAGAR,
HUKKERI TALUK, BELGAUM DISTRICT R/A.JAYANAGAR,
HUKKERI TALUK, BELGAUM DISTRICT 590001
166 . SMT GEETH ASHOK SHETI,
W/O SRI ASHOK SHETI AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
ASST. TEACHER, KGS, YELLI MUNAVOLLI,
HUKKERI TALUK, BELGAUM DISTRICT,
R/A JAYANAGAR, HUKKERI TALUK, BELGAUM DISTRICT 590001
167. SRI BALAPPA SIDDAPPA BENWID,
S/O SRI SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
ASST. TEACHER, KLPS, GUMAVHINAMARDI,
HUKKERI TALUK, BELGAUM DISTRICT,
R/A. GIRI NILAYA, BEHIND AMBA BAI TEMPLE,
HUKKERI TALUK, BELGAUM DISTRICT 590001
168 . SMT SANTAVVA BASAPPA AKKISAGAR,
S/O SRI BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
ASST. TEACHER, GKHPS, HONNUR MASTIHOLI,
HUKKERI TALUK, BELGAUM DISTRICT,
S/A.C/O. ASHOK PARVATHI AKKISAGAR,
PLOT NO.13, PARVATHI LAYOUT,
SHIVATEERTHA COLONY, MAHANTESH NAGAR,
BELAGAVI CITY, BELGAUM DISTRICT 590001
169. SRI VIRUPAKSHAIAH ROTTAYANAVAR,
S/O SRI MADIVALAYYA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
ASST. TEACHER ULPS GAJAVARAWADI,
HUKKERI TALUK, BELGAUM DISTRICT 590001,
RESIDING AT C/O.YENAGIMATH, JAYANAGAR,
HUKKERI TALUK, BELGAUM DISTRICT 590 001.
- 26 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11138-DB
WP No. 102652 of 2022
170 . SRI SHIVALING S NAGASHETTI,
S/O SRI SIDDRAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
ASST. TEACHER, LPS NO.3,
SAUSHI, KUNDGOL TALUK,
DHARWAD DISTRICT,
R/A.C/O.B.M.UPPIN,
REVANNA SIDDESHWARA PARK,
KUNUDAGOL TALUK,
DHARWAD DISTRICT 581113
171. SRI CHANNABASAPPA BASAPPA KONDAGOLI
S/O SRI BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
ASST. TEACHER, GOVT. URDU BOYS SCHOOL,
YALIWAL KUNDGOLD TALUK,
DHARWAD DISTRICT, R/A. KIRESUR,
HERSUR, HUBLI, DHARWAD DIST 581113
172 . SRI SHIDDARAMMAPA AMRITAPPA BANAGAR
S/O SRI A MRITAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
ASST. TEACHER, LPS HARLAPUR,
KUNDGOL TALUK,
DHARWAD DISTRICT, R/A.DHARANI COMPLEX,
BASTIKERI, LAKSHMESHWARA
AT AND POST, GADAG DIST 582116
173. SMT VANITH CHANNAPPA GIDDAKENCHENNANVAR
W/O SRI V G MUDIGOUDAR. AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
ASST. TEACHER, HPS ARAVATAGI,
DHARWAD TALUK, DHARWAD DISTRICT,
R/A.HOUSE NO.29, 3RD CROSS,
VINAYAKANAGAR, KELAGERI ROAD,
DHARWAD DIST. 581113
174. SRI U N BUDHIHAL, S/O SRI NEELAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
ASST. TEACHER, HPS, GOUDAGERI,
KUNDGOL TALUK, DHARWAD DISTRICT 581107
R/A.KALAS AT AND POST, KUNDGOLD TALUK,
DHARWAD DISTRICT 581 107
175. SMT MEENAKSHI S HIREMATH,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O.SHRANAPPA,
ASST. TEACHER, KASTURI BA GANDHI
BALIKA VIDYALAYA ALNAVAR,
DHARWAD TALUK, DHARWAD DISTRICT,
R/A. HOUSE NO.233, SETTY KUNJA,
2ND MAIN, 3RD CROSS, NARAYANPUR,
DHARWAD DISTRICT 581 113.
- 27 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11138-DB
WP No. 102652 of 2022
176. SMT SHASHIKALA K, W/O SRI K M NANDESH
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
ASST. TEACHER, GHPS, ARLIKATTE,
HUBBALI TALUK, DHARWAD DISTRICT,
R/A.C/O.K.M.NANDISH, H.NO.1619,
50TH MAIN, 57TH CROSS,
VANAGIRI NAGAR, SATTUR, DHARWAD 581113
177. SMT BASAVVA M SHIVAPUR,
W/O SRI MALAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
ASST. TEACHER, GHPS, KASAMBI,
BYADAGI TALUK, DHARWAD DISTRICT,
R/A KASAMBI, BYADAGI TALUK,
DHARWAD DISTRICT 581113
178. SRI SIDDAPPA T NAGANNANAVAR,
S/O SRI THIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
ASST. TEACHER, GHPS, B. SHIGIGATTI,
KALAGHATAGI TALUK, DHARWADA DISTRICT,
R/A.SHIGIGATTI, KALAGAHATAGI TALUK,
DHARWAD DIST. 581113
179. SRI SURENDRASINGH RAJPUTH,
S/O SRI GANGARAM RAJPUTH
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, ASST. TEACHER,
GHUPS, SHAREWADA, HUBLI TALUK,
DHARWADA DISTRICT,
R/A. HOUSE NO.1775, R.M.LOHIYA NAGAR,
GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI TALUK,
DHARWADA DISTRICT 580030
180. SMT ARUN TIRKAPPA CHAKI,
S/O SRI TIRKAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
ASST. TEACHER, MPS NO.1, KOTTIGERI,
LAKSHMESHWARA TALUK AND GADAG DIST,
R/A C/O.N.S.PAWADASHETTER,
ISHWARANAGAR, HUBLI ROAD,
LAKSHMESHWARA NAGAR,
GADAG DISTRICT 581 145
181. SMT DRAKSHAYANI L HEBASUR,
D/O SRI ABIUT AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
ASST. TEACHER, GMPS, SHIRAGUPPI,
HUBLI RURAL DHARWAD, R/A.NO.27,
SHIVA SADANA, KOTARI NAGAR,
1ST CROSS, GADAG ROAD,
DHARWAD DIST. 580020
182. SRI ABDUL SAB GUDUSAB BYLI,
S/O SRI GUDUSAB AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
- 28 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11138-DB
WP No. 102652 of 2022
ASST. TEACHER, GLPUS, SHIRAHATTI
TALAGERI HONI, SHIRAHATTI TALUK,
GADAG DISTRICT, R/A. SHIRAHATTI
TALAGERI HONI, SHIRAHATTI TALUK, GADAG DIST.
183. SMT YELABURGI B V, D/O SRI VEERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, ASST. TEACHERGHPGS,
HIREHAL,RON TALUK, GADAG DISTRICT 582209,
R/A. HIREHAL, RON TALUK,
GADAG DISTRICT, BETAGERI GADAG DISTRICT 561 204.
184. SRI CHANDRASHEKAR VEERAPPA VADAKANNAVAR,
S/O SRI VEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
ASST. TEACHER, GMCS,
JANTALI SHIRUR, MUNDARAGI TALUKA,
GADAG DISTRICT, R/A.VEERA SIRI NILAYA,
DESAI BANA NEAR PUBLI LIBRARY,
LAXMESHWARA TALUKA, GADAG DISTRICT 582209
185. SRI NIRMALA RAMACHANDARA KOPADI,
W/O SRI BABURAO DAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
ASST. TEACHER, GHPS, GOVANAHALA,
LAXMESHWARA TALUKA, GADAG DISTRICT,
R/A. GANGADHAR VONI, NEAR TALUJAA
BHAVANI TEMPLE, SIGLI,
AT POST, LAXMESHWARA TALUKA,
GADAG DISTRICT 582209
186. SRI MUSTAFA MANAKANHALLI,
S/O SRI CHAMANSAB AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
ASST. TEACHER, LPUBS, HANDIGANUR
HAVERI TALUK AND DISTRICT,
R/A.JANATA PLOT DEVAGIRI,
HAVERI TALUK AND DISTRICT 581106
187. SMT SHOBHA SHANKARAPPA YELAVATTI,
W/O SRI SHANKARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
ASST. TEACHER LPUBS, TADASA,
BYADAGI TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT,
R/A. SWAGI ONI, BYADAGI TALUK,
HAVERI DISTRICT 581106
188. SMT RATHNAVVA D H,
W/O SRI NAGARAJ K CHALAGERI
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
ASST. TEACHER, GHPS, BELUR,
RANIBENNUR TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT,
R/O.BELUR, RANIBENNUR TALUK,
HAVERI DISTRICT 581106
- 29 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11138-DB
WP No. 102652 of 2022
189. SRI B I HOSMANI,
S/O SRI IMAMSAB, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
ASST. TEACHER, GHPS, BELAKERI,
BYADAGI TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT,
R/A.MRUTHUNJAYANAGAR,
5TH CROSS, SAFI BUILDING,
RANIBENNUR TALUK HAVERI DIST 581106
190. SMT PUSHPA B MAKRI,
W/O SRI RAVI, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
ASST. TEACHER, GHPS ALADAKATTI,
HIREKERURU TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT,
R/A.SOMANAHALLI, TAVARGI POST,
HIREKERURU TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT 581106
191. SMT SHAILAJA V MATAD,
D/O SRI VEERAYYA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
ASST. TEACHER, HPS, BILLAHALLI,
RANEBENNUR TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT,
R/A.VAGIESH NAGAR, 4TH CROSS,
RANEBENNUR TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT 581106
192 . SRI BASAVRAJU RUDRAPPA HUBBALLI,
S/O SRI RUDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
ASSISTANT TEACHER, GHPS,
KALMADAVU SAVANURU TALUK,
HAVERI DISTRICT, R/A.CHANNAVIRESH M ROODGI,
ROODGI BUILING, BASAVESHWAR NAGAR,
18TH CROSS, AT POST HAVERI,
HAVERI DISTRICT 581106
193. SRI IBRAHIM SAB H BIJJUR,
S/O SRI HUSSAIN SAB AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
ASST. TEACHER, LPS, TIMMPURA TANDA,
HAVERI TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT,
R/A.NEGALUR, HAVERI TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT 581106
194. SMT BASAVVA C METI,
D/O SRI KALAKAPPA ADUR
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, ASSISTANT TEACHER,
GHPS, TOPALAKATTI, KUSHTAGI TALUK,
KOPPALA DISTRICT, R/A.TALAVAGERA,
KUSHTAGI TALUK, KOPPALA DIST.561204
195. SRI MALLIKARJUNA D MYAGERI,
S/O SRI DANADAPPA MYAGERI,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
ASST. TEACHER, MHPS,
- 30 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11138-DB
WP No. 102652 of 2022
GUDDADADEVALAPURA, KUSHTAGI TALUK,
KOPPALA DIST, R/A.HANAMASAGAR,
TALAVAGERE AT AND POST,
KUSHTAGI TALUK, KOPPALA DISTRICT 561204
196 . SRI BALANAGOUDA MALI PATIL,
S/O SRI BHARAMAGOUDA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, ASST. TEACHER, GHPS,
HIREVDRAKAL YELBURGI TALUK,
KOPPALA DISTRICT, R/A.KADEKOPPA AT AND POST,
KUSHTAGI TALUK, KOPPALA DISTRICT 583278
197 . SMT SHARADA DUNDAPPA ACHANUR,
D/O SRI DUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
ASST. TEACHER, GHPS,
MADIKERI KUSHTAGI TALUK,
KOPPAL DISTRICT, R/A.HANUMASAGAR,
KUSHTAGI TALUK, KOPPAL DISTRICT 582209
198. SRI BALAKRISHNA NAMADEVA KOLEKAR,
S/O SRI NAMADEVA KOLEKAR,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
ASST. TEACHER, KHPS SHELAPURA,
HUKKERI TALUK, BELGAUM DISTRICT,
R/A. ANJENEYA NAGAR, SANKESHWARA ROAD,
HUKKERI TALUK, BELGAUM 590001
199. SMT MAHADEVI SHIVAPPA PATIL,
W/O SRI SHIVAPPA B PATIL
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
ASST. TEACHER, GHPS,
BASAPUR GADAG TALUK, GADAG DISTRICT,
R/A.YELISIRURU, GADAG TALUK AND DISTRICT 582116
200. SRI SHANMUKAPPA M ANGADI,
S/O SRI MAHADEVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
ASST. TEACHER, GMLS, HPS,
DUNDASI, SIGOV TALUK,
HAVERI DISTRICT, R/A.YALIWAL,
KUNDAGOLA TALUK,
DHARWAD DISTRICT 580001
201. SRI CHETHAN YESHWANTH NAIK,
S/O SRI YESHWANTH NAIK,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
ASST. TEACHER, LPS, SATAGERI
KARWAR TALUK, UTTARA KANNADA
DISTRICT 581314, R/A.KENI
AT AND POST, ANKOLA TALUK,
- 31 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11138-DB
WP No. 102652 of 2022
UTTARA KANNADA DIST 581314.
202. SRI RAJU P NAIK,
S/O SRI P NAIK, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
ASST. TEACHER, HPS, HEBBANKERI,
HONNAVARA TALUK,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT 581 314,
R/A.MAUNIHOLE, SARALAGI POST,
HONAVARA TALUK,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT 581 314.
203 . SRI GANAPATHI T NAIK,
S/O SRI T NAIK, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
ASST. TEACHER, LPS MUDKANI,
HONAVAR TALUK,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT 581314,
R/A.KABBINAKERI, HONNAVARA TALUK,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT 581 314.
204. SMT CHAYA V NAIK,
W/O SRI VIVEK M NAIK,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
ASST. TEACHER, HPS ILIKAR,
HONNAVARA TALUK,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT 581314,
R/A.MURUR ROAD, KUMUTA TALUK,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT 581 314.
205. SRI SIDDARAMAYYA SANGAYYA HIREMATH,
S/O SRI SNGAYYA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
ASST. TEACHER, HPS TAVARAGERI,
KALAGATAGI TALUK,
DHARWAD DISTRICT 581314,
R/A.DHANESHWARI COLONY,
GOPANAKOPPA, HUBBALI TALUK,
DHARWAD DISTRICT 581314.
206. SRI SHIVANANADA RAMAPPA HADIMANI,
S/O SRI RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
ASST. TEACHER, GHPS BELERI,
NARAGUNDA TALUK,
GADAG DISTRICT 581314,
R/A.KOLLAPURA, NARAGUNDA TALUK,
GADAG DISTRICT 581314.
207. SRI SANGAPPA CHINNAPPA GODIGOLI,
S/O SRI CHINNAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
ASST. TEACHER, LPS HANUMAPUR,
KALAGATAGI TALUK, DHARWADA DISTRICT 581314
- 32 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11138-DB
WP No. 102652 of 2022
208. SRI ABDUL KAREEM M PATIL,
S/O SRI MOHAMMAD GOUSE
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
ASST. TEACHER, LPUBS DOMMINAL,
HANAGAL TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT 581314
209.SRI PRAKSH BALAKRISHNAPPA SHIMPI,
S/O SRI BALAKRISHANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
ASST. TEACHER GHPS SHANKARI KOPPA ,
HANAGALLA TALUK HAVERI DISTRICT 581101
210. SRI RAMAPPA CHANABASAPPA POOJARA,
S/O SRI CHANNABASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
ASST. TEACHER, GLPS HALESINGAPURA,
HANAGALLA TALUK 581314,
R/A.CHALAGERI AT AND POST,
RANIBENNUR TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT 581145
211. SRI J M JANTLI, S/O SRI JANTLI,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
ASST. TEACHER, GHPS JANGINAKOPPA
HANAGAL TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT 581314,
R/A. HANUMASAGAR, GANDI CHOUKA,
BOMMANAHALLI, HANAGAL TALUK,
HAVERI DISTRICT 581 145.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.S.C.JAINAR, ADV. FOR R33;
SRI.N.R.KUPPELUR, ADV. FOR R11 TO R16, R19, R20, R22,
R23, R29, R31 TO R33, R39, R42, R43, R45 TO R51, R53 TO
R57, R61 TO R63, R109, R115, R163, R170, R173, R177,
R180, R181, R183, R185, R187 TO R193, R205, R207, R209
AND R210;
R2 TO R9, R24, R28, R34, R36, R38, R40, R44, R52, R64, R65,
R75 TO R77, R81 TO R83, R86, R88, R89, R91 TO R93, R98,
R101, R103, R107, R110, R111, R117, R120, R124 TO R128,
R130, R132 TO 135, R139, R140, R142, R144 TO R146, R149
TO R151, R153 TO R155, R159 TO R162, R167, R171, R172,
R174, R182, R184, R195, R199 TO R202, R211- SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT
IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER
PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL AT BELAGAVI IN APPLICATION NO. 10539 TO 10624,
- 33 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11138-DB
WP No. 102652 of 2022
10626 TO 10636, 10639 TO 10682, 10684 TO 10741, 10743 TO
10754 OF 2019 BY ORDER DATED 26.08.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition by the State Government is directed against the impugned order dated 26.08.2021 passed in Application No.10539/2019 and connected matters by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Belagavi (for short, 'the Tribunal'), whereby the said applications filed by the private respondents were allowed and the appellants were directed to consider the representation submitted by the respective applicants and also consider granting them benefits in terms of the impugned order which reads as under:
"O R D E R Applicants, who are working as Assistant Teachers in primary/higher primary schools, have filed these applications challenging the memorandum dated 15/06/2019 issued by the 3rd respondent and sought for direction to the respondents to take action to
- 34 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11138-DB WP No. 102652 of 2022 publish the revised merit list of Assistant Teachers of Government Lower and Higher Primary Schools, selected pursuant to the selection for the years 1997- 98 and 1998-99 in respect of Dharwad and Gulbarga divisions, as directed by the Tribunal in A.Nos.11212- 11356/2016 and connected matters decided on 13/02/2019 and the applicants are also seeking further direction to the respondents to extend all the consequential benefits by considering the representations submitted by them, as per Annexures A13 to A24.
2. The case of the applicants is that they were candidates for recruitment to the post of Assistant Teachers in Government Lower Primary and Higher Primary Schools, pursuant to the notification issued for the years 1997-98 and 1998-99. The said recruitment was conducted with the benefit of rural weightage. The said rural weightage was challenged before Hon'ble High Court in the case of Basavaraj Nagore vs State of Karnataka {ILR 1999 KAR 1814} and the Hon'ble High Court by Order dated 11/11/1998 has declared granting rural weightage as illegal and struck down the said rule, while declaring rule 3B as illegal and has saved the appointments made earlier to the said date. During the pendency of writ appeal filed challenging the order dated 11/11/1998, the applicants therein were appointed
- 35 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11138-DB WP No. 102652 of 2022 with rural weightage. Subsequently, the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court confirmed the order passed in writ petitions and further saved the selections and appointments done during pendency of writ appeal. Against the said order passed in writ appeal saving the appointments, special leave petition was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court challenging saving of appointments made during pendency of writ appeal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court set-aside the saving of appointments. In pursuance of the said order, the Government issued the circular dated 02/07/2003 directing the authorities to review the selections and appointments made with rural weightage after 11/11/1998 and as per that, the selecting/appointing authorities are required to prepare and publish select list of candidates by removing the rural weightage and to appoint the candidates, who find place in the revised list, in the place of candidates removed prospectively. In view of the said circular, applicants who were selected with the benefit of rural weightage, have been terminated without preparing and publishing the revised select list of candidates by removing the rural weightage as required under the circular and without considering that they were eligible even without rural weightage. Subsequently, the Government has framed the Karnataka State Civil Services (Absorption of the persons appointed to the State Civil Service with the
- 36 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11138-DB WP No. 102652 of 2022 benefit of rural weightage) (Special) Rules, 2003 and by notification dated 12/11/2003 absorbed persons, who were appointed after 11/11/1998 with rural weightage and whose services have been terminated. As per the said rules, the applicants' services have been absorbed in the posts. As on that date, they have worked for more than four years and in view of the said absorption, the pay scale is required to be fixed in the minimum pay scale and their services shall be counted for leave and pensionary benefits. In pursuance of the said removal of rural weightage, as many as 5714 teachers were terminated from service. In view of their absorption, all these applicants through association and individually have submitted representations for extending all the benefits stating that they were selected, appointed and worked for many years andfor no fault of them, they are deprived of the benefit. In this regard, there have been several proceedings before the concerned Minister and other authorities. Thereafter, similarly situated employees through association have submitted the demand and agitated and though the same was assured to be considered, but nothing has been done and as such, some of the teachers filed A.Nos.11212- 11356/2016 challenging the rule which denies the benefit and also sought direction to extend the benefit by counting the previous service. This Tribunal by order dated 13/02/2016, on considering the fact that
- 37 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11138-DB WP No. 102652 of 2022 as per the circular dated 2/7/2003 there were three conditions in the circular i.e. to prepare and publish the revised select list by excluding the rural weightage, to exclude the persons who did not find a place in the revised merit list and to appoint the persons who find place in the place of candidates removed, further considered the contention that the respondents have not prepared and published the revised select list of candidates by excluding the rural weightage and also considering that in the event of respondents publishing the revised select list, they would also come within the merit and to include them in the list, allowed the applications partly by permitting the applicants therein to submit representations and further directed the respondents- authorities to consider the said representations in accordance with the circular dated 02/07/2003. Pursuant to that, the said applicants have submitted representations. In pursuance of the order passed in A.Nos.11212 to 11356/2016, the applicants who were also similarly placed as that of those persons, who were directed to submit representations and further directed to consider the representations and accordingly, the applicants submitted the representations, as per Annexures A13 to A24, with a similar request to prepare and publish the revised select list, as required under circular dated 02/07/2003 and the same is pending consideration. In
- 38 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11138-DB WP No. 102652 of 2022 the meanwhile, the 3rd respondent has issued the memorandum dated 15/06/2019 in respect of all the teachers, by referring to the decision of the Tribunal in A.Nos.11212-11356/2016 decided on 03/02/2019 and the circular and other communications made through the association, declining to grant any relief stating that the teachers absorbed pursuant to absorption rules are not entitled for counting their earlier service and for fixation of pay. In view of the said memorandum, which is in general form, the same is applicable to all the teachers, as such the applicants have challenged the said memorandum and sought for the relief of consideration of their representations. Hence, the applicants are before this Tribunal seeking for the reliefs.
3. The respondents opposed the applications by filing reply statement and also the additional reply statement, however they have not denied the chronological facts relating to the appointments of the applicants and subsequent decision of the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on the issue of rural weightage and issuance of circular dated 2.7.2003 directing for revising the select lists excluding the rural weightage and regarding appointment of candidates selected in the place of candidates who were included in the revised list. The respondents also stated that framing of rules for absorption of the employees who do not come within
- 39 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11138-DB WP No. 102652 of 2022 the merit on excluding the rural weightage and those persons who have been terminated. The respondents state about fixation of pay as per the rules. The respondents also mention about filing of applications by other candidates, disposal of applications and also mentioning that applicants are not entitled for the relief sought for in these applications.
The respondents took time to produce the documents and thereafter filed the additional reply statement dated 09/07/2021 and on 13/07/2021 contending at para 3 that the present case is relating to the recruitment for the years 1997 to 1999. Applicants have no complaints regarding the action taken by the recruiting authorities in the said recruitment. Though they were appointed in the said recruitment, but they were removed from service as per the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and thereafter, they were reappointed in pursuance of KCS (Absorption of the persons appointed to the State Civil Services with the benefit of rural weightage) (Special) Rules, 2003. After absorption, the applicants have not made any complaint regarding their service conditions or any other matter. Applicants have submitted representations requesting the Government to consider the service rendered by them before removal and till the date of absorption for all purposes including pay and seniority etc. The said
- 40 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11138-DB WP No. 102652 of 2022 representations made by the applicants have been considered by the Government, but rejected the same, thereby stating that the applicants are not covered under the provisions of Section 15 of Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider the applications filed by the applicants.
The respondents further urged that as per the absorption rules, the service rendered by the applicants prior to their re-appointment can be considered only for the purpose of leave and pension and the said service will not be considered for the purpose of pay and seniority. As per the saidrules, pay has to be fixed in the minimum of the time scale of pay of the post in which they were absorbed. Applicants never challenged the provisions of the said rules and as such, it is not permissible for them to request for considering the service rendered prior to absorption for the purpose of pay and seniority at this stage, without challenging the rules. Further, urged that the cause of action to file these applications arose in the year 2003. Applicants have filed the applications in the year 2019, without filing any application seeking for condonation of delay and thus, the Tribunal will not get jurisdiction to consider the applications on merits until and unless the delay is condoned nor the applicants have not filed any application for condonation of delay nor have
- 41 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11138-DB WP No. 102652 of 2022 submitted any explanation for enormous delay in approaching the Tribunal.
The respondents further state at para 8 by mentioning about the contention of the applicants that they were removed from service without making appropriate list, as directed by the Government in the circular dated 02/07/2003 by mentioning that all the recruiting authorities have acted in accordance with the directions issued by the Government in the circular dated 02/07/2003. The applicants without challenging the removal order in the year 2003, cannot make a grievance that they should have been removed only after preparation of revised list in accordance with the direction issued in the circular. Further urged at para 9 that challenge made to the endorsement is also not maintainable as the same is issued after considering the provisions of 2003 rules and government circular dated 02/07/2003.
The learned Additional Government Advocate reiterating the said contentions argued that applications filed by the applicants are liable to be rejected.
4. The learned Counsel appearing for the applicants also argued by reiterating the contentions that the applicants being government servants are required to ventilate their grievance before this Tribunal and referred to section 15 of the
- 42 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11138-DB WP No. 102652 of 2022 Administrative Tribunals Act, which covers the relief sought for in these applications. The learned counsel argued that applicants were initially appointed as Assistant Teachers with the benefit of rural weightage. Pursuant to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, Government issued circular dated 02/07/2003 and as per that the selecting authority is required to prepare the revised select list of the candidates by excluding the rural weightage and the persons who were appointed with the rural weightage and do not find a place in the revised list were to be terminated and to take action to appoint the candidates who are newly included in the revised list prospectively, thereby, it is clear that candidates, who do not find a place in the revised list, are to be terminated, for which it is necessary to prepare and publish the revised select list after excluding the rural weightage. In this regard, learned counsel appearing for the applicants has relied on the decision rendered by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of M.Ramanjini and others vs State of Karnataka and another {W.P.Nos.14727-728/2004 and connected matters decided on 17/09/2004} under similar circumstances relating to rural weightage in the matter of preparation of revised select list, has considered about the procedure to be followed by the selecting authority, thereby, he urged that the procedure prescribed in the circular is required to be followed,
- 43 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11138-DB WP No. 102652 of 2022 whereas in the case on hand, no such procedure is followed and if at all the respondents had prepared the revised select list, as required, would have mentioned about the same and produced the lists. On the other hand, the records relating to selection and select lists are required to be maintained and the same is not a disposable document or file. On the other hand, even after absorption of the candidates under the absorption rules, in each and every district, the issue relating to the said recruitment is pending before the Courts or the Government and also the concerned authorities. At the time of hearing on 24/02/2021, learned Additional Government Advocate sought time to produce the orders issued in pursuance of the absorption rules, 2003 and he was also directed to produce the revised select list published by the department pursuant to the circular dated 02/07/2003 and on subsequent dates, learned Additional Government Advocate sought time to get records from all other districts as he had obtained the records from few districts. Thereafter, he filed additional reply statement, but not produced the select list nor stated anything with regard to publication of the revised select list. As such, it is required to be considered that the respondents have not published the revised select list or it is required to be presumed that without complying the requirements as required under the circular, to show that the direction of the Hon'ble
- 44 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11138-DB WP No. 102652 of 2022 Supreme Court of India and to overcome from the contempt proceedings filed for not complying the direction, the contempt petitions are pending, but hurriedly acted to terminate the services of the applicants as they were selected with the benefit of rural weightage marks as such claiming that the respondent- authorities without complying the requirements and without preparing and publishing the revised select list, as required, have proceeded and terminated from service. Subsequently, their services have been absorbed, but without complying the requirement, as per the circular. The requirements are that persons who did not come within the merit to include their names alone have to be terminated. That being the fact, for which the respondents are required to prepare and publish the list of candidates excluding the rural weightage, such a list is not prepared and published, even the same is clear from the contentions of the respondents. That being the situation, the said action amounts to violation of mandatory requirements under the circular and thereby, the same is illegal. Hence, any action taken is illegal and subject matter of the select list which comes within the purview of Administrative Tribunals Act. Hence, the contention of the respondents in this regard is not tenable.
Further, with regard to other contentions about the maintainability and the delay are concerned, learned
- 45 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11138-DB WP No. 102652 of 2022 counsel argued that this Tribunal in the case of similarly placed teachers considered the grievance and issued directions to the respondents in that regard. Since the applicants are also similarly placed employees, referring to the said direction, they have submitted the representations and in the meanwhile, though the Tribunal directed the authorities to consider the representations submitted by those applicants with regard to preparation of the revised select list and those applicants have submitted the representations by referring to the orders passed by the Tribunal, but the respondents have issued general endorsement rejecting the claims without considering the directions of the Tribunal. It is clear from the memorandum that the same is made applicable to all the concerned and hence, the applicants have challenged the said endorsement and also sought for other reliefs. There is no delay in approaching the Tribunal and the learned counsel also referred to various other decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court with regard to the contention raised by the learned Additional Government Advocate in respect of jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain the applications with reference to the relief sought for by the applicants and also with regard to the contention that delay in claiming the relief are concerned, by stating that statutory duty is cast upon the respondent-authorities to prepare the revised select
- 46 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11138-DB WP No. 102652 of 2022 list and publish the same. The applicants have specifically contended that respondents have not published the revised list of the candidates after excluding the rural weightage and they are legally bound to perform the said duty and comply the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. That being the fact, the respondents have not chosen to mention in the reply statement or in the additional reply statement bringing to the notice the date on which the revised list is published and have also not chosen to produce the document for having not complied the directions, but are now harping against the applicants and requested to reject the prayer of the applicants.
5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the applicants and the learned Additional Government Advocate, perused the pleadings and documents produced along with the applications.
6. The applicants are working as Assistant Teachers in Lower Primary and Higher Primary Schools in respective schools of various districts mentioned at Annexure A1. It is an admitted fact that they were selected and appointed in the recruitment for the years 1997-98 and 1998-99 with the benefit of rural weightage and they were appointed after 11/11/1998. Rule 3B of KCS (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 relates to extending of rural weightage, which had been challenged before Hon'ble High Court of
- 47 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11138-DB WP No. 102652 of 2022 Karnataka and by order dated 11/11/1998 in Basavaraj Nagore vs state of Karnataka and others (ILR 1999 KAR 1814), in which grant of rural weightage to the rural candidates is declared as void and saved the appointments of the petitioners with rural weightage till the date of the judgment. The said order was challenged by filing Writ Appeals and the said appeals were rejected by order dated 26/11/1999 confirming the order dated 11/11/1998 and further saved the appointments made during pendency of the writ appeals {ILR 2020 KAR 727}. The said order passed in writ appeal has been challenged before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 11/10/2001 allowed the appeals and set-aside the direction issued saving the appointments made during pendency of writ appeals, by referring to the decision in case of Sreedhar S vs State of Karnataka and another reported in (2002)9 SCC 441. The relevant portion of the order in paras 9 and 10 read as follows:
"9. ... ... ...The Division Bench committed an error in not considering the interim order that had been passed while entertaining the appeals. In that interim order, it was unequivocally indicated that any appointments to be made thereafter would be subject to the final decision in the appeals and the State Government would obtain an undertaking from the appointees so that they cannot claim any equity on the basis of such appointments. In fact, it is conceded that such undertakings have been
- 48 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11138-DB WP No. 102652 of 2022 obtained by the State Government from all those who were appointed subsequent to the order passed by the learned Single Judge. In that view of the matter, the two directions of the Division Bench referred to earlier i.e. dated 26.11.1999 and 16.12.1999 must be held to be unsustainable in law. We, therefore, set aside those directions of the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka in relation to appointments made during the pendency of appeal and also the selection made. These appeals are accordingly allowed.
10. We make it clear that if any of these appointees are otherwise entitled to be appointed even after excluding the weightage give under Rule 3(B), this judgment will not operate to debar them from being appointed."
Thereby, setting aside the direction issued saving the appointments and selections made with rural weightage till the decision is concerned and further clarifying that the said decision will not debar the appointees, who were eligible even after removal of rural weightage. Thereby clarifying the position that those candidates without rural weightage come within the purview of merit, are required to be appointed. Pursuant to the said decision dated 11/10/2001, Government has not taken any steps to implement the decision by preparing the select list with the rural weightage. In another decision in Vittal and others vs State of Karnataka and others {(2004)10 SCC 162} at para 16 it is held as follows:
"16. As far as the other services are concerned, if the State has not complied with the Court's order dated 11.10.2001 they have done so at
- 49 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11138-DB WP No. 102652 of 2022 their peril. If indeed what the writ petitioners in the writ petitions filed in respect of police service have said is correct, the State Government is directed to take immediate action to rectify this situation and comply with this Court's direction as contained in the order dated 11.10.2001 within a period of eight weeks from date. This only leaves the relief that can be granted to the writ petitioners. As far as they are concerned, if their case for appointment had not been consideredonly because otherwise unqualified candidates had been appointed by virtue of Rule 3(B) and if as a result of the decision of this Court on 11.10.2001 any vacancies have been created in the year in which these writ petitioners had successfully qualified and been named in the merit list, they shall, against the vacancies so created, be entitled to be appointed in their turn and in accordance with the merit list. This exercise shall also be carried out within a period of eight weeks from the date. ...
... ..."
Pursuance to the said decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 06/05/2003 and thereafter on filing contempt petitions complaining about non- compliance of the orders, the Government has issued the circular dated 02/07/2003 as at Annexure A2 for implementation of the order passed on 06/05/2003 and extracted the order passed in Sridhar's case at paras 6 and 7 and extracted the order passed on IAs and review petitions and issued the direction at para 10, which is as follows:
"10. ªÉÄîÌAqÀ »£À߯ÉaiÀÄ°è, ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÀÅ «µÀAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀªÀÄUÀæªÁV ¥Àj²Ã°¹zÉ. DzÀgÀAvÉ, J¯Áè DAiÉÄÌ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÉÃvÀÄPÁw ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀUÀ¼ÀÄ F PɼÀPÀAqÀ PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉƼÀî¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¸ÀÆZÀ£É ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVzÉ.
- 50 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11138-DB WP No. 102652 of 2022 (J) ¢£ÁAPÀ:11.11.1998 gÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ UÁæ«ÄÃt PÀÈ¥ÁAPÀzÀ ¸Ë®¨sÀåzÉÆA¢UÉ £ÉêÀÄPÁvÉ (appointment) ºÉÆA¢gÀĪÀ J¯Áè C¨sÀåyðUÀ¼À DAiÉÄÌ ¥ÀnÖUÀ¼À£ÀÄß UÁæ«ÄÃt PÀÈ¥ÁAPÀ gÀ»vÀªÁV ¥ÀjµÀÌj¹, ¥ÀjµÀÌøvÀ DAiÉÄÌ ¥ÀnÖUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀæPÀn¸À®Ä PÀæªÀÄ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉƼÀîvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.
(©) ¥ÀjµÀÌøvÀ DAiÉÄÌ ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ°è ¸ÁÜ£À ¥ÀqÉAiÀįÁUÀzÀ C¨sÀåyðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÉêɬÄAzÀ vÉUÉzÀĺÁPÀ®Ä PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉƼÀîvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. ¹) ¥ÀjµÀÌøvÀ DAiÉÄÌ ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ°è ºÉƸÀzÁV ¸ÉÃ¥ÀðqÉUÉÆAqÀ C¨sÀåyðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÉêɬÄAzÀ vÉUÉzÀĺÁQzÀ C¨sÀåyðUÀ¼À ¸ÁÜ£ÀzÀ°è ¨sÀ«µÀåªÀwðAiÀiÁV eÁjUÉ §gÀĪÀAvÉ £ÉêÀÄPÁw ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä PÀæªÀÄ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉƼÀîvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ"
In view of the above, the selections made with rural weightage after 11/11/1998 are to be reviewed and after excluding the rural weightage, a revised list is required to be prepared and published. After such review, if candidates whose names find a place in the earlier list because of rural weightage and whose names do not find a place in revised list prepared excluding rural weightage, they have to be removed from service. The new candidates whose names find a place in the revised list are required to be appointed prospectively, in the place of candidates terminated. Pursuant to the said circular, the office of 3rd respondent has issued circular dated 14/08/2003 in respect of the relieving teachers, thereby, it is clear that to give effect to the decision in rural weightage, revised list is required to be prepared and published and further action is required to be taken and thereafter prepare the revised list/select list of candidates, which is a statutory requirement. Subsequently, the Government has issued a notification dated 12/11/2003 by framing the rules for
- 51 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11138-DB WP No. 102652 of 2022 absorption of persons appointed to state civil services with the benefit of rural weightage and are terminated. As per that, the applicants who were appointed with the benefit of rural weightage were terminated and they were absorbed pursuant to the absorption rules.
This being the fact, the applicants urge that the respondents have not published the revised list, as required under circular dated 02/07/2003 and in view of the contempt proceedings pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to not complying the directions issued in Sridhar.S vs State of Karnataka {2002 (9) SCC 441} and Vital and others vs State of Karnataka and others {2004 (10) SCC 162} without complying the requirement of preparation of the revised list of candidates excluding the rural weightage. In this regard, earlier thisTribunal in A.Nos.11212-11356/2016 decided on 13/02/2019 (Annexure A12), in which though rule is challenged, ultimately on considering the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in State of Karnataka and others vs Shashidhar reported in ILR 2014 KAR 1767 with regard counting the service rendered prior to absorption is not permissible, as observed at paras-7 to 11 directed the applicants therein to submit representations and further directed the respondents to consider the representations submitted by the applicants therein, as required
- 52 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11138-DB WP No. 102652 of 2022 under circular dated 02/07/2003 and thereby directed the appointing authority to take action in accordance with circular. As per that, it is clear that respondent-authorities are required to prepare the revised list as per circular dated 02/07/2003, if not already prepared. In view of the said direction, the applicants therein submitted representations to the concerned authorities requesting to prepare the revised select list and to extend the benefits. Since the applicants are also similarly placed as that of the applicants in A.Nos.11212-11356/2016 and other matters, by referring to the direction issued in said decision have submitted representations seeking similar relief as that of others as per Annexures A13 to A24 dated 18/04/2019, 03/05/2019, 18/04/2019, 25/04/2019, 18/04/2019, 30/04/2019, 18/04/2019, 18/04/2019, 28/05/2019, 18/04/2019, 25/04/2019 and 03/05/2019. Applicants also urged that it is settled law that every candidate need not approach the court, on the other hand, they can claim for the similar benefit, as held by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Nagappa vs State of Karnataka reported in ILR 1985 Kar 2152 and other cases, thereby in the representation by mentioning the facts the applicants have sought for following relief/consideration, which read as follows:
"9. That in view of the facts stated supra, we respectfully appeal that in the light of the orders passed by the Karnataka State
- 53 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11138-DB WP No. 102652 of 2022 Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru in application Nos.11212 to 11356/2016 and 6630 to 6701/2017 dated 13.2.2019 and taking into consideration of the circular dated 2.7.2003, first consider our case on par with the selected candidates in the main select list under Notification No.1/1997- 98; and extend the benefits on par with them and also publish the revised merit select list of Assistant Masters and count our past service for notional fixation of pay, seniority, pension etc. and oblige."
Applicants also refer to the decision rendered by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of M.Ramanjini vs State and Others {W.P. No 14727- 728/2004 (S- Res) and connected matters decided on 17/09/20004} which also relates to rural weightage, in which the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has considered with regard to the list prepared by the Public Service Commission at para 4, which is as under:
"4. From the aforesaid rival contentions, it is clear that the right of a candidate to secure employment in the Government of Karnataka on the basis of rural weightage is fully settled by the Supreme Court. It is not open to them to re- agitate the matter in these proceedings. All that is expected to be done is a follow- up action in pursuance of the Supreme Court judgment. The KPSC is expected to exclude ten marks given to those candidates who claim rural weightage and them prepare and list of 1096 persons. If persons whose names find a place in the list published earlier because of rural weightage if their names do not find a place nor in the review list, they lose employment. Otherwise if they have requisite merit notwithstanding exclusion of these ten marks by way of rural weightage, their
- 54 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11138-DB WP No. 102652 of 2022 services would be continued if they had already been appointed. Similarly, persons who are not selected earlier, by virtue ofexclusion, if they have requisite marks, they get into the list and they would be eligible for appointment. This is all the exercise what is expected to be done by the KPSC. The material on record show that they have made this exercise. Draft list is published. Petitioners have filed objections. It is only at the stage of considering and publishing that list, on an apprehension that the petitioners are going to be terminated and in some cases termination orders were issued, petitioners approached this Court for the relief sought for in the writ petitions. Under the circumstances, I do not find any justification to grant the relief sought for. ...
..."
It is clearly mentioned about the compliance to be done in regard to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court. That being the fact, since the applicants have specifically contended that respondents have not chosen to prepare and publish the revised list, publication of the revised list is mandatory for compliance/implementation of the decision. In the event of the list not being published and applicants herein are less meritorious than the last selected candidate, in particular category, they are not entitled for anything and in the event, they come within the selection range, then they are entitled for extending the benefit. Applicants are expecting for consideration of their request, which is required to be done under law, which is legitimate. In the meanwhile, in referring to the decision of this Tribunal in A.Nos.11212-11356/2016, the applicants have
- 55 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11138-DB WP No. 102652 of 2022 submitted the representations. The 3rd respondent referring to the said decision and also various other claims made by the teachers individually and through the association, has issued the memo dated 15/06/2019 rejecting that persons who were absorbed as per absorption rules are not entitled for pay fixation from the date of absorption. Since the said memo refers to the decision, based on which the applicants have sought the relief as that of those persons, as directed by the Tribunal, they have filed these applications challenging the said memo, which is issued generally and also sought for the relief of consideration of the representations requesting for publication of revised select lists by excluding rural weightage and in that event, if they find a place, the benefits can be granted and not otherwise. The applicants have specifically contended that respondents have not prepared and published the revised select list by excluding the rural weightage, which they are required to prepare and publish for complying the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court and also raised specific grounds in that regard. We have thoroughly gone through the reply statement and also the subsequent additional reply statement. In the reply statement, respondents have not stated anything with regard to preparation and publishing of revised select list by excluding rural weightage. Further, in the additional reply statement also,
- 56 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11138-DB WP No. 102652 of 2022 nothing has been stated about publication of the revised select list. In this regard, learned Additional Government Advocate referred to para 8, which reads as follows:
"8. The applicants have stated that they were removed from service without making appropriate list as directed by the Government in the circular dated 2.7.2003. It is submitted that all the recruiting authorities have acted in accordance with the directions issued by the Government Circular dated 2.7.2003. The applicants without challenging the correctness of the removal order in the year 2003, cannot make a claim that they should have been removed only after making of the revised list in accordance with the directions issued by Government circular dated 2.7.2003."
From the above, it is clear that respondents have not stated about publication of revised select list. On the other hand, they have only stated without mentioning that appropriate list has been published as required under circular dated 02/07/2003, states that all the recruiting authorities have acted in accordance with the directions issued in the circular. The said statement is made without regard to preparation and publication of revised list of candidates without rural weightage. It is also necessary to refer here that on 21/01/2021 learned counsel for the applicants argued the matter and the learned Additional Government Advocate sought time stating that in view of the argument of the learned counsel for applicants, he has to go through the pleadings etc. and argue the matter. On 24/02/2021 after hearing both the
- 57 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11138-DB WP No. 102652 of 2022 Advocates, the learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that he wants to produce the orders issued pursuant to absorption rules and hence, he was directed to produce the revised list published by the department in pursuance of the circular dated 02/07/2003. Thereafter on 16/03/2021 learned Additional Government Advocate requested for time by mentioning as follows:
"The learned AGA stats that he made efforts to get records from all districts which is involved in this application, he can able to get information from few districts. Therefore, he required to get the records from other districts, he also proposed to file additional reply statement. Hence, he requests to post these matters on 4.6.2021.
In view of the said submission, time is granted as prayed for it is also made it clear that the learned AGA is required to file/forward the additional reply statement and the documents well in advance to the principal bench, by serving on other side.
Post these matters on 4.6.2021.
A copy of this order be furnished to the learned AGA."
Thereafter, learned Additional Government Advocate has made following statement:
"Learned AGA states that in pursuant to earlier submission made by him according to his papers he has already filed reply statement in the first week of June 2021.
- 58 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11138-DB WP No. 102652 of 2022 Office is directed to verify. On the other hand, learned AGA is directed to verify and make available records.
Post this matter on 14.7.2021."
Thereby, it is clear that learned Additional Government Advocate has not chosen to produce the records i.e. the revised select list prepared in respective districts. Even in additional statement also, he has not stated about preparation of the revised select list, which is mandatory. The applicants have only requested for preparation of the revised select list and it also indicates that if at all the revised list is prepared, the same is required to be produced. On the other hand, the respondents have not chosen to reply to the representations submitted by the applicants in that regard. Since the respondents 6 to 13 and 15 are required to reply by informing the respective applicant by indicating the position of the applicant in the revised list to be prepared and published. In the absence of the same, the action of the respondents is required to be construed as illegal and contrary to law.
The respondents have raised various grounds mentioning that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain and consider the applications, in the absence of filing application for condonation of delay in seeking reliefs by the applicants, as they are harping in respect of recruitment relating to the years 1997-98 and 1998-99. In this regard, it is to be stated that the
- 59 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11138-DB WP No. 102652 of 2022 recruitment to the posts of the years 1997-98 and 1998-99, selections are made appointing the candidates. In view of the fact that the recruitment is by extending the benefit of rural weightage and granting rural weightage is held to be illegal and rule was held to be unconstitutional. As such, the selections and appointments made after 11/11/1998 were ordered to be revised by excluding rural weightage. In that regard, a circular was issued directing all the concerned authorities for revising the list by excluding the rural weightage. That being the fact, the preparation of revised list is the requirement under law, based on the said list, concerned authorities are required to remove or appoint the candidates. If at all the respondents prepare the lists, the same is required to be furnished. On the other hand, the select list/revised list is not a document or a file, which can be disposed of after some time, but the same is the basis for all the actions including the seniority etc. Even after the appointment and absorption of the candidates, who were terminated from 2004 onwards till now one or the other issue is before the Courts or with the authorities with regard to pay fixation and other ssues and as such, the records relating to the said recruitment is not disposable. The learned Additional Government Advocate was directed to produce the records/revised select lists prepared and published after issuance of
- 60 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11138-DB WP No. 102652 of 2022 circular dated 02/07/2003. That being the position, the 3rd respondent referring to the decision of the Tribunal, based on which the applicants sought similar relief of publication of the revised select list, has issued a memo informing that teachers absorbed under absorption rules are not entitled for fixation of pay by considering the previous service rendered before absorption. Since the said memo is issued generally to all the persons, the applicants have challenged the said memo by which the relief is required to be extended to them on preparation and publication ofthe revised select and also sought for the reliefs and as such, the contentions of the respondents with regard to delay is without any basis. Such a situation has arisen because of the fact that respondents have chosen to produce the list prepared as per circular dated 15/06/2019. As such, from the date of the said memo the applications are within time and hence, the contentions of the respondents are without any merit.
Another point raised by the learned Additional Government Advocate is that grievance of the applicants does not fall under any of the clauses in Section 15 of Administrative Tribunals Act. Applicants have sought for preparation and publication of the revised select list, as required under the circular dated 02/07/2003 and based on that requested for extension of the benefits. The said relief is coming
- 61 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11138-DB WP No. 102652 of 2022 within the clauses of Section 15 of Administrative Tribunals Act and as the same relates/concerns to service conditions, the same is required to be considered depending upon the list required to be published. Hence, the said contention is without any substance. The respondents further contended that the relief sought by the applicants is not entertainable and the recruitment in which the applicants are seeking relief has taken place long back and therefore, at this juncture, approaching the Tribunal with regard to the issue relating and concerning to the recruitment is not permissible etc. In this regard, it is required to mention here that in respect of the issue relating to the rural weightage and consequences thereon and absorption of persons who were terminated, the issues relating to pay fixation and counting of previous service and seniority, fixation of pay and recovery of the excess salary paid on fixation are pending and it is clear from the memo dated 15/06/2019. Since the preparation of revised select list is a requirement, in the absence of preparation and publication of such a list, the action taken to terminate the services of the applicants is illegal and contrary to law. Under the circumstances, it is required to consider the various issues relating to absorption and various issues pending and consideration before the authorities, which is clear from the memo dated 15/06/2019 and hence, the
- 62 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11138-DB WP No. 102652 of 2022 contention of the respondents is without any substance.
The applicants have challenged the memo issued by the 3rd respondent declining the pay fixation by considering the previous service rendered by the persons who were selected and appointed with rural weightage as the same was issued by referring to the decision of the Tribunal in A.Nos.11212-356/2016 at reference No.1 and also the representations submitted by the association and also other communications, referring to the absorption rules. This Tribunal in the applications has considered the issue relating to compliance of circular dated 02/07/2003 and as per that the competent authority is required to prepare and publish the revised select list. This Tribunal in A.Nos.11212-11356/2016 at paras 7, 9, 10 and 11 has considered the requirement of preparation of the revised list and issued the direction. The relevant consideration made in the said applications are hereunder:
"7. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants has brought to the notice of this Tribunal the three conditions found in Annexure A2 Circular dated 2.7.2003, the 1st condition is to prepare a list by excluding the rural weightage; 2 nd condition is to take steps to exclude the candidates who would not find a place in the revised list based on merit and 3rd condition is to absorb those persons who are found to be eligible in place of candidates removed because of rural weightage and to give
- 63 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11138-DB WP No. 102652 of 2022 them appointment under the Special Rules prospectively. It is further submitted that the important exercise of preparing a revised list was not done and that the applicants were automatically absorbed under the Special Rules and this has caused injustice. If the authorities concerned did not publish any revised list after excluding the rural weightage, they are expected to consider this point in so far as it relates to the publication of revised list in order to know whether the applicants would still come in the select list based on merit, even after excluding rural weightage. Even after removing the rural weightage some candidates may still come within the purview of merit and their ranking may go down and nothing beyond that. Therefore, the authorities concerned will have to prepare the revised select list excluding ineligible candidates, for the limited purpose of finding out whether the petitioners/applicants would still come in the merit list even after excluding rural weightage. If some of the applicants are found to be in the revised list, their earlier service will be counted for notionalfixation of pay, seniority and pension and pensionary benefits.
9. In this view of the matter, a limited mandamus is required to be issued in all these cases. At this stage, learned Counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants may be given one more opportunity of submitting a comprehensive representation to the authorities concerned to act in accordance with the Circular dated 2.7.2003 (Annexure A2) and to take appropriate action in accordance with law.
10. There is lot of force in the said submission. In view of the submissions as above, it would meet
- 64 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11138-DB WP No. 102652 of 2022 the ends of justice if the applicants are given one more opportunity to submit proper representation/s to the authorities concerned to take appropriate action in accordance with law as per the circular dated 2.7.2003,with a reasonable time.
Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) Applications are allowed in part;
(ii) Applicants are permitted to submit appropriate representation/s within three months from today and if such representation/s are submitted, they shall be considered by the concerned authorities in accordance with the circular dated 2.7.2003 within a further period of five months thereafter and while doing so, the observations made by this Tribunal be kept in mind."
Thereby, the consideration is made with reference to the requirement under circular dated 02/07/2003 and the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in Ramanjini's case and issued the direction to the applicants therein to submit the representations and further directed the authorities to consider the said request of the applicants therein. Since the applicants are similarly placed as that of the applicants in those applications, they also submitted the representations. From the decision of the Tribunal in A.Nos.11212-11356/2016, it is clear that in view of the consideration and the direction issued with regard to compliance of circular
- 65 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11138-DB WP No. 102652 of 2022 dated 02/07/2003, respondent No.3 is required to consider the representations of the applicants and consider for publication of revised select list of candidates, as required under the circular. However, in the memo though the 3rd respondent has referred to the decision of the Tribunal, has not considered the same with reference to the claim of those applicants made in the representations. That being the fact, as contended by the applicants that in view of the memo issued by the 3rd respondent generally considering grievance of teachers and informing all those persons who were waiting for grant of relief of counting their previous service rendered before absorption and for extension of the benefits, the applicants have challenged the memo, contending that though the 3rd respondent has not considered the issue relating to publication of the revised select list, the applicants can claim the benefits since the revised list is not published and as such the claim made by the applicants is justified and the same is maintainable. The applicants and all others persons from the beginning have been harping with regard to consideration of their claims and are before the Tribunal and also before the concerned authorities, seeking benefit of consideration of their request for counting the previous service and fixation of pay scale and the said fact is clear from the different proceedings mentioned and referred to in the memo
- 66 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11138-DB WP No. 102652 of 2022 dated 15/06/2019 and other documents produced in the applications relating to the issue. Therefore, it is clear that the issue relating to the claim made by the applicants is one way or the other relating to the issue of extension of the benefit of considering them with reference to appointment from their initial dates, considering that they were eligible for including in the revised list if the said list is prepared and published, then only the said benefit can be conferred on them. The respondents are statutorily bound to prepare and publish the revised select by excluding the rural weightage, as required under the circular issued in pursuant to the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court and also it is a requirement under law. From the reply statement and additional reply statement, respondents apart from stating that all the authorities have acted in accordance with law, have not stated anything about publication/preparation of the revised select list of candidates even though the learned Additional Government Advocate has sought time to get the records, but has not chosen to produce the revised select lists, but subsequently urged various grounds including maintainability, jurisdiction and also delay and laches in order to overcome the hurdle of not furnishing the revised select lists. However, the said preparation of the revised select list is mandatory requirement under the circular issued in pursuance of the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the same
- 67 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11138-DB WP No. 102652 of 2022 is a statutory requirement. The claim made by the applicants depends upon the revised select list and if their names are included in the revised select list, then the authorities are required to extend the benefit of considering them from the initial date. That being the fact, the relief sought for by the applicants for extension of benefit/grant of pay or refixation of pay scale is a continuous cause of action and as such, there is no delay and the same is clear from the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M.R. Gupta vs Union of India and others {1995(5) SCC 628} and hence the contention of the learned Additional Government Advocate is erroneous. It is necessary to consider that entire claim of the applicants or relief sought by the applicants which depends on the revised select prepared and published as required under the circular dated 02/07/2003 and as considered by the Hon'ble High court of Karnataka in Ramanjini's case referred to supra, in which, the Hon'ble High Court considered the circular and held that what are all required to be considered by the concerned authorities to comply or to give effect to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex court in the matter relating to rural weightage. Therefore, the concerned authority is required to prepare and publish the revised select list. It is the contention of the applicants that the concerned authority has not prepared the revised select list and therefore, it is required to
- 68 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11138-DB WP No. 102652 of 2022 prepare and publish the revised select list, if it is not prepared so far and if it is prepared, it is required to verify whether the names of the applicants/candidates are included or not. The preparation of revised select list is a statutory requirement under the circular and to implement the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court the select lists are required to be revised by excluding the rural weightage and publish the select list. As such, respondents are bound to comply the direction issued in the said applications and based on such compliance, the claim of the applicants are required to be considered. The respondent-authorities, without specifically indicating about preparing, publishing and producing the revised select lists, are harping differently, which is clear from the reply statement and additional reply statement, and they indicate that respondents have not come up with clear facts, on the other hand are trying to cover up by submitting with regard to jurisdiction of the Tribunal in entertaining the claim of the applicants, etc. It is also clear from the records produced along with the applications, in respect of the issue relating to the rural weightage, is before the Court from 1999 onwards one way or the other in different ways and different reliefs. Another aspect which is required to be considered that the selection lists/revised select list would be published in official gazette and the selection list is not a destroyable or disposable document/record as the
- 69 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11138-DB WP No. 102652 of 2022 same relates to the candidates appointed to the state civil service and various issues relating to the said selections lingering one or the other way in Courts. That being the situation, this Tribunal had directed the concerned authorities to consider the representations, which are for extending the benefit, on publication of the revised select lists and in the event the applicants' name appear in the list, then applicants are entitled for the benefits. That being the situation, the respondents without considering to publish the revised list or in the event if revised list already exists, produce the same to demonstrate that list is existing and as per that applicants are not entitled for the reliefs. In view of the consideration made above, we are of the view that the applicants have made out a case for issuing direction to the respondent nos.6 to 15 to consider the representations submitted by the applicants for preparation and publication of the revised select list, as required under circular dated 02/07/2003 and if their names appear in the revised select lists, extend the benefits to them. Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) Applications are allowed and the respondent nos.6 to 15 are directed to consider the representations dated 18/04/2019, 03/05/2019, 18/04/2019, 25/04/2019, 18/04/2019, 30/04/2019, 18/04/2019, 18/04/2019, 28/05/2019,
- 70 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11138-DB WP No. 102652 of 2022 18/04/2019, 25/04/2019 and 03/05/2019, Annexures A13 to 24, submitted by the applicants and consider granting them the benefits by publishing the revised select list of candidates as required under circular dated 02/07/2003 upon finding their names in the revised select list within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
(ii) If the respondents have already published the revised select lists as required under circular dated 02/07/2003, they are required to furnish the lists to the applicants within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
2. As can be seen from the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, the appellants have been directed to address the grievances of the private respondents and proceed further in accordance with law. Under these circumstances, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal warranting interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The appellants are directed to comply with the directions issued by the
- 71 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11138-DB WP No. 102652 of 2022 Tribunal in the impugned order in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.
sd JUDGE Sd JUDGE KMS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9