S.Kannappa vs State Of Karnataka on 11 December, 2020

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

S.Kannappa vs State Of Karnataka on 11 December, 2020

Bench: M. Nagaprasanna

                              1




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020

                         BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

         WRIT PETITION NO.56479 OF 2013 (S-RES)


BETWEEN :

S.KANNAPPA
S/O NARAYANA NAYAKA
AGE 26 YEARS
KELADI AT POST SAGAR TALUK
SHIMOGA DISTRICT 577 401

                                          ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI MAHESH R UPPIN, ADVOCATE - PHYSICAL HEARING)

AND :

1.      STATE OF KARNATAKA
        BY ITS SECRETARY
        DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
        VIDANA SOUDHA,
        BANGALORE 560 001

2.      DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
        SHIMOGA DISTRICT
        SHIMOGA 577 201

3.      THAHSILDAR
        SAGAR TALUK , SAGAR
        SHIMOGA DISTRICT 577 401

4.      SEETHA RAMA, MAJOR
                                2




     S/O NAGAPPA H K
     KELADI SAGARA TALUK
     SHIMOGA DISTRICT 577 401 .

                                               ...RESPONDENTS

     (BY SRI SRINIVAS GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3 -
PHYSICAL HEARING;
         SRI B. J. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R4 - PHYSICAL
HEARING)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 28.11.2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-E PASSED BY THE
THASILDAR.

       THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING :

                             ORDER

The petitioner in this writ petition has called in question the order dated 28.11.2013 by which respondent No.4 was appointed as Gram Sahayak in Sagar Taluk.

2. Heard Sri Mahesh R. Uppin, Sri Srinivas Gowda, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3, Sri B. J.Mahesh, Advocate for respondent No. 4; and perused the material on record.

3. The only ground of challenge to the appointment of respondent No.4 is that respondent No.4 is 7th Standard, and the petitioner is a Graduate.

4. The minimum qualification in terms of the Guidelines for appointment to the post of Gram Sahayak is 7th Standard. Petitioner, though is a graduate, is not the qualification prescribed in terms of the Notification, it is 7th standard, which the respondent No.4 has. It is trite Law that one who does not have the requisite qualification in terms of the Notification is least competent to challenge the appointment of a selected candidate who has the qualification prescribed.

Writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE hnm

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court