Disposed

Sri Sa.Ra.Mahesh v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Feb 2021WP/9123/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of Writ Petition and Writ Appeal concerning a recruitment drive alleging systematic fraud and violation of Rule 18 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960, specifically regarding 25 additional posts.

What did the court decide?

Fresh recruitment not ordered for 168 posts; appointments to 25 disputed posts directed to be made subject to result of pending petitions before Single Judge.

Sri Sa.Ra.Mahesh Vs the State of Karnataka — Cooperative Societies | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

-: 1 :-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 08^th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE Mrs. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE Mrs. JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶8

WRIT PETITION No. 9123/2020 (S-RES-PIL)

¶9

C/W

¶10

WRIT APPEAL No. 431/2020 (S-RES-PIL)

¶11

IN WRIT PETITION No.9123/2020:

¶12

BETWEEN:

¶13

SRI. SA. RA. MAHESH, S/O. S.R. RAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, SAALIGRAMA, KRISHNARAJA NAGAR TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 604.

¶14

SRI. ASHWIN KUMAR, S/O. MALLAYYA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT SURVEY NO.08, THOTADA MANE, THUMBALA GRAMA, KASABA HOBLI, T. NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSORE - 570 001. ... PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE (THROUGH V/C))

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATIVE M.S. BUILDINGS, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶18

-: 2 :-

¶19

THE REGISTRAR, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, NO.1, ALI ASKAR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 052. 3. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OP SOCIETIES, MYSURU REGION, MYSURU - 570 024. 4. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OP SOCIETIES, COFFEE KRUPA BUILDING, RAJASEET ROAD, MADIKERI, KODAGU - 571 201. 5. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, MYSORE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LIMITED MEGA DIARY COMPLEX, BANNUR ROAD, ALANAHALLI POST, MYSORE - 570 028. 6. CENTER FOR DISTANCE EDUCATION MANGALORE UNIVERSITY, MANGALAGANGOTRI, KONAJE PROPER, KARNATAKA - 574 199. ... RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT. VANI H., AGA FOR R1 TO R4 SRI. JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. VARUN J. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R5 SRI. DEVI PRASAD SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R6 SRI. KARTHIK V., ADVOCATE FOR PROPOSED IMPLEADING APPLICANTS)

¶21

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE ENTIRE RECRUITMENT PROCESS PURSUANT TO THE NOTIFICATION DATED 07.09.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-A ISSUED BY THE R-5 IS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF A SYSTEMATIC FRAUD AND THEREFORE IT IS NOT NEST AND VOID, DECLARE TAHT THE RECRUITMENT TO 25 POSTS PERMITTED IN TERMS OF THE

¶23

-: 3 :-

¶24

ORDERS OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR DATED 09.04.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-D IS IN CONFLICT WITH RULE 18(1) AND THEREFORE IMPERMISSIBLE AND ETC.,

¶25

IN WRIT APPEAL No.431/2020:

¶26

BETWEEN:

¶27

SRI. KEERTHI RAJ D., S/O. DEVEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, ANKANAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST, SALIGRAMA HOBLI, K.R. NAGAR TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 604.

¶28

SRI. PUNITH K.M., S/O. MAHADEVA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, HOSA BEDI, SALIGRAMA HOBLI, K.R. NAGAR TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 604.

¶29

SRI. KUMARA S.M., S/O. MAHENDRA S.M., AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, SEERBILLENAHALLI VILLAGE, SEELNERE HOBLI, K.R. PETE TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 426.

¶30

SRI. SHARATH D.L., S/O. LAKSHMANE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, DEVARAHALLI VILLAGE, BILIKERE POSTS AND HOBLI, HUNUISURU TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 103.

¶31

SRI. SUMANTH KUMAR A.M., S/O. MANJUNATH, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, ANAKANHALLI VILLAGE AND POSTS, SALIGRAMA HOBLI,

¶32

-: 4 :-

¶33

KR NAGAR TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 604.

¶34

ABHISHEK C.G., S/O GOPAL C M, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE AND POSTS, SALIGRAMA HOBLI, KR NAGAR TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 604.

¶35

SRI. DRUSHYANTH, S/O. SOMASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, SALIGRAMA, K.R. NAGAR TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 604.

¶36

KUM. KAVYA K.P., D/O. PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, KEMPEGOWDANAKOPPAL VILLAGE, KITTUR POSTS, BETTADAPURA HOBLI, PERIYAPATANA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 617.

¶37

SRI. AKILESH M. GOWDA, S/O. MANJUNATH S.M., AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, HOUSE NO.2081/A, F BLOCK, 6TH CROSS, 3RD STAGE, DATTAGALLI MYSURU DISTRICT - 570 022. ... APPELLANTS

¶38

(BY SRI. P.S. RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. M. KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶39

AND:

¶40

THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶41

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION,

¶42

-: 5 :-

¶43

GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶44

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶45

THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES IN KARNATAKA, ALI ASKAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶46

THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, MYSURU REGION, MYSURU - 570 024.

¶47

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, MYSURU DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS SOCIETIES UNION LTD., MYSURU-570 011. ... RESPONDENTS

¶48

(BY SMT. VANI H., AGA FOR R1 TO R5 SRI. JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. A. MAHAMMED TAHIN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R6)

¶49

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 13.07.2020 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1/2020 IN W.P.NO.7692/2020 AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL.

¶50

THESE WRIT PETITION AND WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶51

J U D G M E N T

¶52

W.P. No.9123 of 2020 is stated to be filed as a public

¶53

interest petition, while W.A. No.431 of 2020 is filed by the petitioners in W.P. No.7692 of 2020 assailing the interim

¶54

-: 6 :-

¶55

order dated 13.07.2020 passed on I.A.No.1/2020 in

¶56

W.P.No.7692/2020.

¶57

The petitioners in the writ petition have sought

¶58

the following reliefs and interim reliefs:

¶59

"PRAYER

¶60

WHEREFORE, the petitioners most humbly pray that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to

¶61

(i) ISSUE a writ of appropriate nature and in the nature of a mandamus declaring that the entire recruitment process pursuant to the notification dated 07.09.2019 vide Annexure-A issued by the 5th respondent is the subject matter of a systematic fraud and therefore it is no nest and void;

¶62

(ii) ISSUE a writ of appropriate nature to declare that the recruitment to 25 posts permitted in terms of the orders of the Joint Registrar dated 09.04.2020 vide No.ANI/DY3/13/DCS/NE.NE/2018-19, Annexure-D, is in conflict with Rule 18(1) and therefore impermissible;

¶63

(iii) ISSUE a writ of appropriate nature to declare that all the process of recruitment after the publication in terms of Rule 18(1) till the conducting of interview is by non statutory or extra statutory authorities for the purpose of recruitment and

¶64

-: 7 :-

¶65

therefore such stages of recruitment is invalid in the eye of law and cannot be given effect to;

¶66

(iv) ISSUE a writ of mandamus directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to take appropriate decision in the matter on the basis of the observations in the communication of the 2nd respondent dated 11.06.2020 vide No.ANI/DY-2/05/2020-21, Annexure-F, and pass such other appropriate orders as may be deemed appropriate in the ends of justice.

¶67

INTERIM PRAYER

¶68

Pending disposal of the writ petition, the petitioners, most humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay all further proceedings in the recruitment process pursuant to the notification dated 07.09.2019 vide Annexure-A, and pass such other orders as may be deemed appropriate in the ends of justice."

¶69

The appellants in W.A. No.431 of 2020 are the petitioners in W.P. No.7692 of 2020. They have assailed the interim order dated 13.07.2020 passed by the learned single Judge. By the said interim order, learned single Judge has modified the earlier interim order granted on 09.06.2020 and permitted the process of recruitment and selection to take place subject to the result of the writ

¶70

-: 8 :-

¶71

petition. Being aggrieved, the writ petitioners have preferred this appeal.

¶72

Both, the writ petition filed in public interest as

¶73

well as the writ appeal pertain to the recruitment Notification dated 07.09.2019 pursuant to which, fifth respondent in the writ petition i.e., the Mysore District Cooperative Milk Producers' Union Limited, Mysore ('Cooperative Milk Producers' Union' for short) have sought to fill up certain posts. A challenge is made to the recruitment process, in addition, a declaration has been sought for recruitment of 25 additional posts, permitted in terms of the order of the Joint Registrar. That the same is contrary to Rule 18 of the Karnataka Co-operative Society Rules, 1960 [hereinafter, referred to as "the Rules"].

¶74

The writ petition as well as the writ appeal have been connected, as the issues raised by the writ petitioners and appellants are similar and/or identical.

¶75

The interim orders passed in these cases on various dates are extracted as under:

¶76

a) On 13.08.2020, it was ordered as under:

¶77

-: 9 :-

¶78

"We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA who has appeared in advance notice on the interim prayer sought for by the petitioners through video conference.

¶79

Issue notice to the respondents.

¶80

Learned AGA accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

¶81

Petitioners’ counsel to take steps to serve respondent Nos.5 and 6.

¶82

It is stated at the Bar that the interview of the candidates is in progress. In the circumstances, the interview may be completed as per the schedule. However, the final select list shall not be published without the leave of the Court.

¶83

Petitioners’ counsel to remove the office objections."

¶84

b) Subsequently, on hearing learned counsel for

¶85

the petitioner, learned senior counsel for the appellants, learned senior counsel for the respondent/society and other learned counsel on 30.11.2020, the following order was passed:

¶86

"We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners in the writ petition and learned Senior Counsel for the appellants in the

¶87

-: 10 :-

¶88

connected appeal and learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.5 –Society and learned counsel for respondent No.6 – University at length.

¶89

During the course of hearing, it has emerged that respondent No.6 – University conducted the recruitment test. Admittedly, the key answers were not published and the candidates are not aware of the key answers till date. However, the list of successful candidates was published and they have been interviewed and the final select list has been prepared, but there is no publication of the same as this Court has restrained the publication of the final select list.

¶90

In the interregnum, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.5 – Society submitted that an application has been filed by respondent No.5 seeking permission to upload the OMR sheets, question paper and the key answers on the website without prejudice to its contentions in these matters.

¶91

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, however, submitted that if the key answers are published, then an opportunity must be given to object to the key answers and the final key answers may be published and on the basis of the final key answers, merit list may be published.

¶92

-: 11 :-

¶93

However, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.5 – Society objected that the object of filing an application seeking permission to upload OMR sheets, question paper and the key answers is to evidence transparency in the process and it is unnecessary to give an opportunity to the candidates to file objections to the key answers as under Rule 18 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960, the publication of the key answers and calling for objections to the key answers are not envisaged. However, in the interest of transparency in the recruitment, the application has been filed.

¶94

At the outset, we observe that respondent No.5 – Society has been very fair in filing an application seeking permission to upload the OMR sheets, question paper and the key answers on the website without prejudice to its contentions in the matter. However, we find that the object of publication of key answers is to give an opportunity to the candidates to object to the same and hence, in the interest of fairness and transparency in the recruitment, it is just and proper that an opportunity be given to the candidates to file objections or to object to the key answers to be published by respondent No.5 – Society. Therefore, the application is disposed of with the following directions:

¶95

-: 12 :-

¶96

i) The 5th respondent – Society shall upload the OMR sheets, question paper and the key answers on its website on or before 04.12.2020.

¶97

ii) The said uploading of key answers shall remain on the website till 16.12.2020.

¶98

iii) Time is granted till 08.12.2020 to object or to file objections to the key answers.

¶99

iv) All objections to the key answers filed on or before 08.12.2020 shall be considered and the final key answers shall be published on or before 15.12.2020.

¶100

v) After completion of this exercise, list of candidates on merit on the basis of final key answers shall be published on 16.12.2020.

¶101

List these matters on 17.12.2020."

¶102

c) Thereafter, on 21.12.2020, the following order

¶103

was passed:

¶104

"Learned Counsel for respondent No.5 submits that a copy of the merit list on the basis of final key answers shall be filed along with the memo after serving the same on the learned Counsel for the petitioners/appellants He is permitted to do so.

¶105

Learned Counsel for respondent No.5 shall also file a list of candidates who were called for viva voce test by the next date of hearing after

¶106

-: 13 :-

¶107

service of a copy on the learned Counsel for the petitioners/appellants.

¶108

List on 5.1.2021."

¶109

d) On 19.01.2021, the following order was

¶110

passed:

¶111

"Learned Senior counsel submitted that final merit list arrived at pursuant to the order of this Court is filed in a sealed cover and same may be perused.

¶112

Sealed cover was opened and perused and thereafter same is sealed. However, there is no material placed on the file of this Court vis-à-vis merit list that has been prepared pursuant to the final key answers being web-hosted.

¶113

Respondent No.5 to place on record the merit list prepared pursuant to the final key answers web-hosted, by the next date of hearing.

¶114

List on 28.01.2021."

¶115

e) Subsequently, after the matters being listed on 04.02.2021 and 05.02.2021, the matters have been listed today.

¶116

During the course of submissions, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent/Society drew our

¶117

-: 14 :-

¶118

attention to two tables, which have been filed: one, along with memo dated 27.01.2021 and the second in a sealed cover which has been opened in the Court-hall. Learned senior counsel drew our attention to the table appended to the memo dated 27.01.2021. He submitted that pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court on 30.11.2020, the respondent/Society uploaded the OMR sheets, question papers and key-answers on its website and thereafter, time was granted to file objections to the key-answers. Subsequently, objections to the key-answers were considered and final key-answers were published and thereafter, the list of candidates on merit on the basis of the final key-answers has been published which is appended to the memo dated 27.01.2021.

¶119

Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the list shows the marks of the candidates before the revised key-

¶120

answers were published and the marks secured by them after the revised key-answers were published are noted. Thereafter, as per Rule 18(1)(c) of the Rules, 85% of the marks secured in the written test have been computed and thereafter, the interview marks awarded to the candidates

¶121

-: 15 :-

¶122

who attended the interview has been stated and the total

¶123

marks have been tabulated in the order of merit.

¶124

Learned Senior Counsel submitted that having

¶125

regard to the merit of the candidates, even if those candidates who now have the eligibility to attend the interview on the publication of their merit after the keyanswers were published and assuming that they secure full marks (15 marks) in the interview, their total marks would be nowhere near the merit of those candidates who have been thus far interviewed. He contended that the directions issued by this Court have been implemented and the tabulation of the marks have been made and they have been submitted in a sealed cover and on perusal of the same, it may not be necessary for this Court to order for a fresh interview to be conducted of all the candidates. This is because, the candidates already interviewed on the basis of their merit in the written test have secured such high merit that they are the only ones who could be eligible to be appointed to the post as per the reservation made to the various posts.

¶126

-: 16 :-

¶127

respondent/(Union) further submitted that, this Court, in order to ascertain as to whether there was transparency in the recruitment process, issued certain directions in the public interest litigation and the same having been complied with, it may not be necessary to consider the writ petition any further, as, after the publication of the marks of the candidates as per their order of merit, liberty may be reserved to the individual candidates to assail the recruitment, if they are so aggrieved and advised. He submitted that appropriate orders may be made in the public interest litigation as well as in the writ appeal.

¶128

In response to the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent/(Union), learned counsel for the writ petitioners and learned counsel for the appellants raised several contentions, out of which, two contentions may be noticed. First contention being, there is arbitrariness in the award of marks to the candidates who have secured such high marks shows that there is no transparency at all in the award of marks in the written test. It was next contended that if having regard

¶129

-: 17 :-

¶130

to the high marks awarded to the candidates in the written test, the interview marks are of no significance at all. This is because entire recruitment process has been fraudulent and in a systematic manner the object is to select only those candidates who have been favoured. It was contended that this Court may set aside or quash the entire recruitment process and order for fresh recruitment.

¶131

It was also contended that when the initial recruitment was held for 168 posts, 25 additional posts could not have been subsequently added without the said posts being notified and without calling for fresh application from eligible candidates. It was contended that the additional 25 posts were added to the posts initially advertised in order to favour certain candidates and therefore, there is no transparency at all in the entire recruitment process. Therefore, they contended that the appropriate orders may be made in the matter.

¶132

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the appellants and learned senior counsel for the respondent/Union and other counsel in the matter.

¶133

-: 18 :-

¶134

During the hearing of these matters on the days they were listed, certain interim directions were issued and we are satisfied that those directions have been complied with by the respondent/(Union). On compliance with the said directions, it has emerged that the respondent/Union was not right in not publishing the keyanswers and not calling for objections to the key-answers and straight away publishing the names of the candidates who were eligible for the interview. But, pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court on 30.11.2020, the respondent/Union published the key-answers, question paper as well as OMR sheets, and thereafter called for objections to the key-answers, considered the same and then published the final key-answers. On publication of the final key-answers, the final merit list of the candidates who are eligible for interview has been published and thereafter, the final merit-list has also been submitted in a sealed cover.

¶135

On perusal of the same, we find that it is not necessary at this stage for us to order for a fresh recruitment to be conducted by annulling the present one.

¶136

-: 19 :-

¶137

We say so for the reason that there are already certain persons who have filed writ petitions and the same are pending for final adjudication. That apart, we find that the directions issued by us in these cases from the stage of the publication of the key-answers till the stage of publication of the list of candidates as per the merit has been complied with. Secondly, it has emerged that those persons who are eligible to be interviewed on the publication of the merit list after the final key-answers, do not stand a chance to be appointed to the post as per their merit even if full marks are awarded to them in the interview. Therefore, at this stage, we do not think that it is necessary to consider any further the writ petition filed in public interest litigation.

¶138

Further, there is one another aspect of the matter to be considered and that is, merger of 25 posts with 168 posts already advertised without there being any advertisement to those posts. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the appellants is that such a measure without there being any advertisement has prejudiced the candidates and

¶139

-: 20 :-

¶140

therefore, as far as those 25 posts are concerned, suitable orders may be made.

¶141

Since, the writ petition is already pending for final adjudication, we do not propose to consider the writ petition filed in public interest litigation any further.

¶142

We reserve liberty to the writ petitioners whose petitions are pending for consideration to raise all contentions that they may have with regard to 25 posts added to the original posts of 168 posts which were notified for recruitment. If such a contention is raised, the respondent/Union is permitted to reply to the said contention. The appellants are also at liberty to raise any other plea they may have on the recruitment in question.

¶143

Further, pending consideration of the writ petitions filed by the appellants herein, we direct that any recruitment or filling up of 25 posts thereof is subject to the result of the writ petitions and the directions of the learned Single Judge to be made vis-a-vis of the said 25 posts.

¶144

-: 21 :-

¶145

In fact, the learned Single Judge in the interim order has also observed that any appointment made pursuant to the recruitment would be subject to the result of the writ petition. We endorse the said observation made by the learned Single Judge.

¶146

Since, we are reserving liberty to the raise all contentions regarding the filling up of 25 posts before the learned Single Judge in the writ petitions, we direct the respondent/(Union) to specifically notify those candidates in their Appointment Order that their selection and appointment to those 25 posts is subject to the result of the writ petitions. The object and purpose of such a note on the appointment order to be issued to those candidates is to make them aware that their appointment to 25 posts are the subject matter of consideration before the learned Single Judge and subject to the result of the writ petition.

¶147

The writ petition as well as the writ appeal are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶148

Parties to bear their respective costs.

¶149

-: 22 :-

¶150

The dismissal of the writ petition as well as the

¶151

writ appeal will not come in the way of unsuccessful candidates from challenging the recruitment to all the posts concerned.

¶152

In view of the dismissal of the writ petition and writ appeal, the pending applications stand disposed.

¶153

The final merit list submitted by the learned senior counsel in a sealed cover is put back in the sealed cover and returned to the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶154

Sd/JUDGE

¶155

Sd/JUDGE

¶156

MVS* RK/Ct: SG

Sri Sa.Ra.Mahesh v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Sa.Ra.Mahesh 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

Sri T Basavraju Vs Assistant Director

Mr. Justin Samson Vs Mrs. Anitha Krupa

Smt H R Latha Vs Sri H M Shivamurthy

Smt.Rathnamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Habib Khan Vs the Deputy Commissioner

K. Lalitha Vs the State of Karnataka