Dismissed

Shiva Kumar Gowda on Behalf of v. the Chairman

Karnataka HC13 Aug 2020WP/9151/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka rejected a writ petition filed by a private aspirant seeking a stay on GPSC examinations under the guise of Public Interest Litigation. The court cited Supreme Court precedents to hold that PILs must redress genuine public harm without personal motive.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition filed by the petitioner was rejected and dismissed as not being a valid Public Interest Litigation.

Shiva Kumar Gowda on Behalf of Vs the Chairman — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2020

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

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

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI

¶8

WRIT PETITION No.9151 OF 2020 (S-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN :

¶10

Shiva Kumar Gowda on behalf of ASPIRANTS for Gazetted Probationers Examination 2017-18 Aged about 34 years S/o Lokappa Gowda # 1234/A, LGF, Opp ICICI Bank Near Chandra Layout bus depot Bangalore – 560 040. …PETITIONER Party-in-person

¶11

AND :

¶12

The Chairman Karnataka Public Service Commission Udyoga Soudha Bangalore – 560 001. …RESPONDENT

¶13

(By Shri. Reuben Jacob, Advocate)

¶14

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 And 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to (i) Issue direction for stay to respondents regarding postponement of the Preliminary Examination to the Gazetted Probationers scheduled to be held on 24.08.2020. (ii) Issue necessary directions to KPSC for insuring the lives of candidates with

¶15

¶16

Economic and Health Coverage. (iii) Declare that KPSC should not hold Recruitment Examinations until safe and secure situation is arrived at.

¶17

This Writ Petition coming on for Orders, this day, NAGARATHNA J., made the following:

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:

¶20

1. Issue Writ of Mandamus/necessary direction for stay to respondents regarding postponement of the preliminary examination to the Gazetted probationers scheduled to be held on 24.08.2020.

¶21

2. Issue necessary direction to KPSC for insuring the lives of candidates with economic and health coverage.

¶22

3. Declare that KPSC should not hold recruitment examinations until safe and secure situation is arrived at.

¶23

4. Issue any such other writ, order or direction as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case in the interest of Justice and equity.

¶24

¶25

2. The petitioner, who is a practicing

¶26

advocate, has appeared through video conference, as party-in-person and has submitted that he is one of the applicants to the Notification dated 31.01.2020 issued by the respondent for holding the recruitment to the post of Gazetted Probationers.

¶27

Learned counsel for the respondent who has appeared for the respondent, on advance notice, submitted that when the petitioner, who is an applicant pursuant to the Notification issued by the Karnataka Public Service Commission and an aspirant to the post advertised, notified for recruitment, the writ petition cannot be maintained as a Public Interest Litigation.

¶28

In fact, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

¶29

STATE OF UTTARANCHAL VS. BALWANT SINGH

¶30

CHAUFEL AND OTHERS reported in (2010) 3 SCC

¶31

¶32

402 has categorically stated that while entertaining Public Interest Litigation the Court should ensure that it is made for the redressal of a genuine public harm or public injury. The Court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, personal motive or oblique motive behind filing Public Interest Litigation. In fact the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court at paragraph -181 of the said judgment which are germane to this case could be usefully extracted as under:

¶33

“181. We have carefully considered the facts of the present case. We have also examined the law declared by this Court and other courts in a number of judgments. In order to preserve the purity and sanctity of the PIL, it has become imperative to issue the following directions:

¶34

(1) The Courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations.

¶35

¶36

(2) Instead of every individual Judge devising his own procedure for dealing with the public interest litigation, it would be appropriate for each High Court to properly formulate rules for encouraging the genuine PIL and discouraging the PIL filed with oblique motives. Consequently, we request that the High Courts who have not yet framed the rules, should frame the rules within three moths. The Registrar General of each High Court is directed to ensure that a copy of the rules prepared by the High Court is sent to the Secretary General of this Court immediately thereafter.

¶37

(3) The Courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a PIL.

¶38

(4) The Courts should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of

¶39

¶40

the contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL.

¶41

(5) The Courts should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining the petition.

¶42

(6) The Courts should ensure that the petition which involves larger public interest, gravity and urgency must be given priority over other petitions.

¶43

(7) The Courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The Court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation.

¶44

(8) The Courts should also ensure that the petitions filed by busybodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must

¶45

¶46

be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or by adopting similar novel methods to curb frivolous petitions and the petitions filed for extraneous considerations.

¶47

Since the petitioner herein is an applicant

¶48

to the post and an aspirant, he could not have filed this writ petition in public interest or as a public interest litigation. Sub paras (3) and (7) squarely apply to this case. On those grounds, the writ petition is not entertained and is rejected.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

BVK

Shiva Kumar Gowda on Behalf of v. the Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiva Kumar Gowda on Behalf of v. the Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramappa Hatti Vs Union of Inida

Hanumantha Raju L Vs Narayana Shetty

Sri G Srinivasa Gowda Vs Sri B H Anil Kumar

Sri B H Ramachandra Vs the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Sharan Desai Vs the Ministry of Human Resource Development

Sudarshan B K Vs the State of Karnataka