Dismissed

Mallikarjuna Siddappa Sangreshi v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Nov 2018WP/112247/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the writ petition challenging the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal's order. The court held that the petitioner failed to array a less meritorious candidate as a respondent before the Tribunal to challenge their appointment, which was a requisite for granting relief.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as the petitioner failed to seek appropriate reliefs by arraying the appointed candidate as a respondent in the Tribunal.

Mallikarjuna Siddappa Sangreshi Vs the State of… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S.BELLUNKE

¶8

WRIT PETITION No.112247/2017 (S-KAT)

¶9

BETWEEN

¶10

MALLIKARJUNA SIDDAPPA SANGRESHI, S/O SIDDAPPA, AGE:51 YEARS, OCC:NIL, R/O:CHIKKUMBI, TQ:SAUNDATTI, DIST:BELAGAVI-591110.

¶11

..... PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI MADANMOHAN M KHANNUR, ADV.)

¶13

AND

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GOVT., (PRIMARY & SECONDARY) EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.

¶15

THE DIRECTOR (PRIMARY), OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER,

¶16

¶17

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, K.R.CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560001.

¶18

THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, DHARWAD-580001.

¶19

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, BELAGAVI-590001.

¶20

..... RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI RAVI V. HOSAMANI, AGA)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 17.12.2016 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN APPLICATION NO.5090/2007 AT ANNEXURE-C AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION NO.5090/2007.

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Petitioner herein was the applicant in

¶26

Application No.5090/2007 which was filed before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal at

¶27

¶28

Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘the

¶29

Tribunal’, for the sake of convenience). Being aggrieved by order dated 17.12.2016 passed by the Tribunal, petitioner has preferred this writ petition.

¶30

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 on advance notice and perused the material on record.

¶31

It is the case of the petitioner that the fourth respondent had issued notification for filling up posts of Primary School Teacher in the year 1998-1999. Petitioner having the requisite qualification, applied to the post of Primary School Teacher in Category-IIA. According to the petitioner, the cut off marks for selection of Primary School Teacher (male) under Category-IIA was fixed at 57.08333. Petitioner’s percentage

¶32

¶33

was 57.82% but the petitioner was placed in additional final list considering his S.S.L.C. marks.

¶34

According to the petitioner, the S.S.L.C. marks have to be reckoned as 550 but the same was reckoned as 600. In the circumstances, petitioner’s name was placed in the additional list stating that he had secured 57.08333. According to the petitioner, on account of there being an error in the calculation of S.S.L.C. marks, his name was not placed in the main final selection list but it was placed in the additional final selection list. Therefore, he made a

¶35

representation dated 30.06.1999 to the fourth respondent to rectify the mistake and to consider his case for appointment. Since there was no

¶36

response, he gave one more representation on 22.10.2003 and subsequently, the third respondent considered petitioner’s representation and issued a letter dated 10.08.2004 to the fourth

¶37

¶38

respondent stating that there could be some anomalies in the selection and was directed to clarify the same. However, there was no communication issued to the petitioner.

¶39

Therefore, he gave one more representation on

¶40

29.01.2007 to the third respondent. There was another communication between the third respondent and the second respondent on 03.02.2007 and subsequently between the second respondent and the fourth respondent on 05.04.2007. When the matter stood thus, the fourth respondent issued letter dated 18.07.2007 to the second respondent stating that the petitioner could not be selected in the first final selection list of Primary School Teacher for the period 1998-1999 and he had been selected in the additional final selection list in respect of the said post. A copy of the letter dated 18.07.2007 was also communicated to the petitioner. The same was assailed by the petitioner before the Tribunal.

¶41

¶42

The Tribunal by the impugned order has dismissed the application stating that no relief could be granted to the petitioner herein. Being aggrieved, this writ petition has been preferred.

¶43

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had the requisite eligibility as well as qualification for being selected to the post of Primary School Teacher in Category-IIA; that a mistake was committed by the respondent authorities in reckoning the marks that had been secured by the petitioner in S.S.L.C. and therefore, his merit was not as it ought to have been. Therefore, petitioner’s name was found in the additional final list and not in the main final list; that if the respondent authorities had rectified the mistake committed by them, then the petitioner would have had the requisite merit to be selected to the post of Primary School Teacher in Category-IIA. The same not having

¶44

¶45

been done, petitioner made representations. The same were not considered and instead letter dated 18.07.2007 was issued informing the petitioner that he cannot be selected in the first selection list to the Primary School Teacher. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner approached the Tribunal. Learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal has not appreciated the case of the petitioner and has simply dismissed the application on the basis of the submission made by learned counsel for the respondent authorities; that this case calls for interference at the hands of this Court as the petitioner has been deprived of his post as Primary School Teacher on account of an error in the computation of marks committed by the respondent authorities.

¶46

Per contra, learned A.G.A. appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioner has only assailed communication dated 18.07.2007. If

¶47

¶48

really the petitioner was aggrieved by a nonmeritorious candidate being appointed in the place of the petitioner, he ought to have taken steps to array the said candidate as respondent before the Tribunal and challenge the selection, instead petitioner has challenged only the letter or communication issued to the petitioner. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly not granted any relief to the petitioner. In the absence of proper parties being arrayed in the application filed before the Tribunal the writ petition would not call for any interference by this Court as it is devoid of any merit.

¶49

The detailed narration of facts and contentions would not call for a reiteration except highlighting the fact that the petitioner was aggrieved by his non-selection to the post of Primary School Teacher in the selection process which took place in the year 1998-1999. If the

¶50

¶51

petitioner was aggrieved by his exclusion from the main final selection list and inclusion only in the additional final selection list, petitioner could have assailed the same by arraying any candidate who had been selected in the Category-IIA in place of the petitioner as a respondent and assailing the said appointment; instead the petitioner went on making representations to the respondentauthorities who corresponded with each other on the said representation and ultimately issued communication dated 18.07.2007 to the petitioner informing him as to why his case could not have been considered. The Tribunal has noted that although petitioner’s name was in the additional final selection list, the same was not operated as the State Government had not accorded permission and therefore, the petitioner was not appointed to the said post. Be that as it may. We find that in the absence of the petitioner seeking appropriate reliefs before the Tribunal by arraying

¶52

¶53

a candidate who was less meritorious than the petitioner and who was appointed, as a respondent and thereby challenging the said appointment and to contend that the petitioner was more meritorious and therefore entitled to be appointed in his place, this Court cannot grant any relief to the petitioner. The Tribunal would then have been in a better position to consider the case of the petitioner but the same not having been done, the Tribunal has considered as to whether there was any reason to interfere in the matter. The application was filed in the year 2007 and it was disposed off on 17.12.2016 i.e., nine years thereafter, whereas selection process was initiated in the year 1998-1999 and must have been completed in the year 1999. Therefore, at this point of time, we do not find any reason to interfere with the Tribunal’s order so as to consider granting of any relief to the petitioner

¶54

¶55

herein. In the circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed.

SD/-

JUDGE

SD/JUDGE

Naa

Mallikarjuna Siddappa Sangreshi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mallikarjuna Siddappa Sangreshi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Anita D/O Shankar Joshi Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Janabai W/O Balasaheb 2 Balaso Jatar Vs Bahubali S/O Vrushabh Kalshetty

Manoj S. Kawalekar Vs the Registrar

Smt. Smitha W/O Vinayak Jadhav Vs Sri. Nakul S.S., IAS

Ghishibhai W/O Champalal Shah Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. D. P. Mangarsi S/O. Parameshwwar Vs the State of Karnataka