Dismissed

Sri. Bhaskara v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Mar 2021WP/43750/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition challenging the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal's rejection of a candidate's claim that another appointee suffered disqualification due to criminal cases. The Court held the Tribunal correctly dismissed the petition, noting that post-appointment offences fall under disciplinary jurisdiction, and found no illegality in the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition stands dismissed.

Sri. Bhaskara Vs State of Karnataka — Public Procurement and Tenders | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.DESAI

¶7

W.P.No.43750/2016 (S – KAT)

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

SRI BHASKARA S/O GANGA NAIK AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT MULUGERE, L.GUDDEKOPPA VILLAGE, MELINABESIGE POST, HOSANAGARA TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 418. ...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI GANAPATHI, ADV.)

¶11

AND :

¶12

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶13

2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIMOGA DISTRICT, SHIMOGA - 577 201.

¶14

3 . THE TAHASILDAR HOSANAGARA TALUK, HOSANAGARA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 418.

¶15

- 2 -

¶16

4 . SRI NAGAPPA K., S/O KOLLA NAIK AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT BALEKOPPA VILLAGE, HANIYA POST, HOSANAGARA TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 419. …RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI LAXMINARAYAN, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3; SRI SAMEER S.N., ADV. FOR R-4.)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.04.2016 PASSED BY THE LEARNED MEMBER OF THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION No.6539/2011 UNDER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶19

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, S. SUJATHA, J ., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This Writ Petition is filed by the

¶22

petitioner/applicant challenging the order dated 28.04.2016 passed by the Karnataka State

¶23

Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore (‘Tribunal’ for short) in Application No.9539/2014 whereby the application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

¶24

The facts relevant for the purpose of the present case are that pursuant to the Notification dated 2.12.2013 issued by the respondent No.3 inviting the

¶25

¶26

applications for the post of Village Assistants, the petitioner as well as the respondent No.4 amongst others had applied. Respondent No.4 was selected to the said post as per the Government Order dated 13.11.2012. It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondent No.4 had applied to the post of Village Assistant furnishing the false affidavit stating that he has not involved in any criminal case. In the interview held on 30.12.2012 only two candidates viz., the petitioner and respondent No.4 were present and alleging that the appointment of respondent No.4 being not in conformity with the Notification dated 2.12.2013 issued by the respondent No.3, the petitioner approached the Tribunal. The said application being dismissed, the petitioner is before this court.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner inviting

¶28

the attention of the court to the Notification dated 2.12.2013 issued by the respondent No.3, submitted

¶29

¶30

that the conditions stipulated therein are mandatory. Condition No.5 mandates that the applicants should possess good character and shall not be involved in any criminal case. The respondent No.4 was involved in four criminal cases and is a habitual offender. In this regard it was contended that Crime No.159/2014 was filed by one Sri.Srinivasa against the 4^th respondent and others. Criminal Appeal was filed challenging the order of acquittal in C.C.No.361/2010 dated 21.12.2012, which is pending consideration. Crime No.130/2015 was registered against the respondent No.4 in Hosanagara police station as per Annexure-A18 produced before the Tribunal. Further, a complaint was filed by one Sri.Yeragi Umesh, S/o Naganaik against the 4^th respondent which was registered in Hosanagara Police Station on 11.8.2015. Suppressing the same, the respondent No.4 had filed an affidavit dated 12.12.2013 before the police authorities pursuant to which police clearance certificate dated 15.12.2013

¶31

¶32

was issued certifying that there is no adverse inference against the petitioner in the concerned police records.

¶33

The Tribunal has failed to appreciate the documents placed on record to establish the criminal cases pending before the appropriate forums. It was further argued that even subsequent to his appointment, FIR has been lodged against him which ought to have been considered by the Tribunal while adjudicating on the issue.

¶34

Learned counsel for the respondent No.4

¶35

would submit that as on the date of the filing of the application pursuant to the Notification dated 2.12.2013, there was no pending criminal petitions against the said respondent. The alleged police complaint said to have been made subsequently was not registered earlier to 16.12.2013 and the same is made by some persons who are enemical to him. The Tribunal having regard to these facts has rightly rejected the application.

¶36

¶37

Learned AGA supporting the arguments of

¶38

the learned counsel for the 4^th respondent submitted that the selection of the 4^th respondent is as per the norms of the Government and based on the interview.

¶39

Adverting to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the sole question that arises for our consideration is:

¶40

Whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the application upholding the appointment order issued by the respondent No.3, appointing the respondent No.4 as the Village Assistant ?

¶41

The primary ground of attack to the

¶42

impugned order is that the respondent No.4 is not qualified for the appointment in view of the condition No.5 which reads thus:

¶43

"CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ ¸ÀéZÁÑjvÀåæªÀ£ÀÄß G¼ÀîªÀgÁVzÀÄÝ, AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ Qæ«Ä£À¯ï ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼À°è ¨sÁVAiÀiÁVgÀ¨ÁgÀzÀÄ.”

¶44

¶45

In this regard, the Tribunal has analysed

¶46

the documents produced by the petitioner as per annexures A13 to A18. As could be seen, Annexures A13 to A17 relates to pre-application date i.e., 16.12.2013 and in all those cases indisptuedly the respondent No.4 has been acquitted. Annexure-A18 no doubt indicates the date of the alleged offence said to have been committed by the respondent No.4 under sections 341, 504, 323, 506 r/w section 149 IPC subsequent to his appointment, the same would come within the domain of the disciplinary authority to take a decision in the matter in accordance with law. The challenge herein being confined to the selection of the 4^th respondent to the post of Village Assistant, we are not inclined to examine the allegation of any offence made against the respondent No.4 subsequent to his appointment enlarging the scope of the subject matter of the writ petition.

¶47

¶48

For the reasons aforesaid, we do not find any

¶49

illegality or perversity in the order of the Tribunal impugned herein.

¶50

Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

Dvr:

Sri. Bhaskara v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Bhaskara v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Kowsalya Vs State Bank of India

Smt Chikkathayamma Vs Marigowda

Shri Dharmendara Daga Vs Directorate of Enforcement

N T Dayananda Vs Sri Javarappa

M Rajesh @ Rajesh Mallick Vs Karnataka State Financial Corporation

T K Balaji Vs Union of India