Dismissed

Srinivasa T v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Aug 2022WP/14485/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka rejected a writ petition seeking to quash Karnataka Act No.14 of 2022. The court dismissed the challenge to the Tribunal's order, holding that the issue of maintainability belonged to the Tribunal and the matter was already seized upon by the Apex Court.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was rejected; pending applications were disposed of without consideration.

Srinivasa T Vs the State of Karnataka — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.14485/2022 (S-KSAT)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRINIVASA T AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS S/O THIPPESWAMY K R/O HULIGERE, MADALURU (POST), SIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572137.

¶11

HAREESH S H AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS HONUMANTHOORDDY R/O 8, 3^RD FLOOR, 8^TH MAIN ROAD, 17^TH CROSS, AGRAHARA, DASARAHALLI, BASAVESHWARANAGARA, BANGALORE – 560079.

¶12

LOKESHA V S/O LATE VENKATAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/O A.M. DODDI K.D HALLI POST MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DIST – 562120.

¶13

¶14

KAMALA BAI E, D/O ESHWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O #5 SRI SAILAXMINILAYA LOTTEGOLLAHALLI” R.M.V. 2^ND STAGE BENGALURU – 560094.

¶15

K.M. MOHAN AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS S/O S. MARIGOWDA R/O NO-1940, TOP FLOOR, 1^ST MAIN, 8^TH CROSS, M.C. LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGARA - 560040.

¶16

SUDHAKARA REDDY H S/O HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/O VYCHAKURAHALLI, RAMAPURA (POST), GAURIBIDANUR, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 561210

¶17

NAGARAJA B AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS S/O. BEERAPPA, R/O. KADIRANGARIKOTE, BAGEPALLI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT – 563124.

¶18

RAMESH REDDY T B S/O BUDDAREDDY AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/O TURIKESHAPALLI-3 CHAKAVEL POST, BAGEPALLI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DIST – 563124.

¶19

JAGADESH N.M S/O HUNMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS H NAASANDRA, DODEKERUGOWDA POST, GOURIBEDANURU TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA – 561208.

¶20

¶21

KUMAR V S/O VENKATANARASAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/O NO.70, MANGANAHALLI VILLAGE, BENGALURU NORTH, SULIKERE POST, BENGALURU – 560060. 11. GANGARAJU S S/O SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/O HADIHOSAHALLI, THYAMAGEPALLI HOBLI, TYAMAGUNDLU, OBANNAPURA POST NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DIST – 562132. 12. GAUTHAM H N S/O NAGAIAH H S AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/O 139, 7^TH MAIN, 7^TH CROSS, POORNA PRAGNA LAYOUT, UTTARAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560061 13. CHANDRIKA HY. W/O YARRAPPA H C AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/O NO.2668/35, 12^TH MAIN ROAD, E BLOCK, 3^RD CROSS, SUBRAMANYA NAGARA RAJAJINAGARA 2^ND STAGE, BANGALORE – 560010. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI RAJASHEKAR, ADV.)

¶22

AND:

¶23

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560001.

¶24

¶25

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS (DPAR SERVICES) VIKASA SOUDHA, DR.B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001. 3. KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REP. BY ITS SECRETARY “PARK HOUSE”, UDYOGA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001. 4. DR. PRAKASH .S S/O BHARAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O. NO.1877, 7^TH MAIN, E BLOCK, 2^ND STAGE, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE – 560010. ... RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI ARUNA SHYAM, AAG A/W SMT. SHILPA S.GOGI, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3.)

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21/04/2022 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE TRIBUNAL REJECTING THE INTERIM PRAYER IN APPLICATION NOS. 1191-1204/2022 ETC.

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR “ORDERS” THIS DAY, G.NARENDAR J, MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

¶30

ORDER

¶31

Heard the learned senior counsel Sri D.R. Ravishankar along with the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶32

The petitioners are before this Court being

¶33

aggrieved by the order dated 21.04.2022 passed by the Tribunal on their interlocutory application.

¶34

The brief facts are that:

¶35

The petitioners had moved the applications No.1191 to 1204/2022 and the same are pending. In the said applications, the petitioners have sought for the following reliefs:-

¶36

a) “ISSUE a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Karnataka Act No.14 of 2022 published in the Official Karnataka ExtraOrdinary Gazette dated 14-03-2022 Vide No. DPAL 02 SHASHANA 2022, Bengaluru “Karnataka Civil Services (Validation of Selection and Appointment of 2011 Batch Gazetted Probationers) Act, 2022 as unconstitutional and ultra-vires as per Annexure – A8 and

¶37

¶38

b) ISSUE a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to re-do the entire selection process by issuing the new Notification for the appointment of 362 Gazetted Probationers, exclusively to those candidates who participated in the said selection process in the interest of justice and equity;

¶39

c) GRANT such other and further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶40

On a reading of prayer ‘A’ it is seen that the petitioners have sought for invalidating the Validation Act being Karnataka Act No.14 of 2022 published in the Gazette on 14.03.2022 whereby, the selection of Gazetted Probationers 2011 batch came to be validated.

¶41

The learned senior counsel Sri A.S. Ponnanna would invite the attention of the Court to Annexure-B to the writ petition, being an order of the PIL Bench headed by the then Hon’ble Chief Justice. The subject and scope of the PIL was the very same Validation Act. In fact, in para 3 the PIL Bench has recorded the reliefs sought, which are as under:-

¶42

¶43

“a) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order declaring the impugned Act, The Karnataka Civil Services (Validation of Selection and Appointment of 2011 Batch Gazetted Probationers) Act, 2022, Dated 14.03.2022 vide ANNEXURE-J, as being unconstitutional, illegal and void, and/or

¶44

b) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or orders setting aside the appointment orders issued dated 22.03.2022, vide ANNEXURE-K in pursuance of the impugned Act vide ANNEXURE-J.

¶45

c) Pass any other orders as may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of this case.”

¶46

On perusal of the same, it is seen that the relief sought for in the PIL and the relief sought for in the applications are virtually one and the same. The PIL Bench after hearing the counsel for the petitioners therein, has observed and held in para 6 as under:-

¶47

“6. We are of the considered view that the entire Act would not become bad in law simply because the earlier selection was challenged in the High Court and was quashed and thereafter, the impugned Act has come in force. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any provision of the impugned Act which can be treated to be unconstitutional, illegal or void.”

¶48

¶49

From a reading of the above, it is apparent that the PIL Bench has in fact clothed the Validation Act with some sanctity. Be that as it may, it is submitted that subsequent to the dismissal the Public Interest Litigants have carried it forward to the Hon’ble Apex Court and the same is pending before the Hon’ble Apex Court.

¶50

Be that as it may, the subject matter that is

¶51

before this Court is the correctness of the Tribunal’s order dated 21.04.2022 rejecting the interim relief. On a reading of the impugned order, it is seen that a representation has been made to the Tribunal, that the PIL filed has been rejected by this Court and in that view, the tribunal has deemed it fit to reject the interim relief prayed for by the petitioners.

¶52

As noted supra, whether the applications are

¶53

maintainable or not in the light of the orders of the PIL Bench, is an exercise and decision that ought to be rendered by the Tribunal. Prima-facie, the contention of the

¶54

¶55

learned senior counsel on behalf of the petitioners that this Court ought to hear on the maintainability or the otherwise of the applications, in our opinion is unsustainable. It is further vehemently contended that this Court ought to render its opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the order passed by the PIL Bench, which in our opinion amounts to sitting in appeal over the order and the same would amount to a judicial impropriety and hence impermissible. It is not in dispute that this Court does not exercise powers of appeal over the orders passed by the Co-ordinate Bench. That apart, it is also fairly admitted by both the senior counsels that the issue before the Tribunal is squarely seized off by the Hon’ble Apex Court. In that view of the matter, we do not find any warrant to retain the writ petition on record.

¶56

Accordingly, writ petition stands rejected. In

¶57

view of the fact that the matter is seized off by the Hon’ble Apex Court, we are of the view that the parties would be better advised to have the issues agitated and adjudicated

¶58

¶59

by the Hon’ble Apex Court to avoid considerable duplicity of litigation.

¶60

In view of disposal of the petition, pending I.As. if any,

¶61

do not survive for consideration and is accordingly disposed of.

¶62

Sd/JUDGE

¶63

Sd/JUDGE

¶64

Chs CT-HR

Srinivasa T v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Srinivasa T 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mithun M S Vs Smt Bhavana G

M/S Sorting Hat Technologies Private Limited Vs Vishal Vivek Tiwari

LIC of India Vs Kum Ponnaganti Sumedha Reddy

Sri Rajeshwara C Vs the Chief Secretary

Sri Nagendra K S Vs the State of Karnataka

Hanumantarayappa a(Late) Vs Sri Gopala Krishna