This intra-court appeal against a Single Judge's order dismissing a petition for regularization as a Pourakarmika was dismissed. The Bench upheld findings of fraud regarding fabricated appointment documents and noted the appellant's claimed age made regularization at 16 improbable. The appeal is devoid of merits and dismissed.
Writ Appeal dismissed; costs made easy.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2023:KHC:43212-DB WA No. 471 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
WRIT APPEAL NO. 471 OF 2022 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. RAJA, S/O SANJEEVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT ANNENAHALLI, URUVEKERE POST, TUMKUR DISTRICT 572 202.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAVINDRANATH K.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by SHARADA VANI B
Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
NC: 2023:KHC:43212-DB WA No. 471 of 2022
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.SHWETHA KRISHNAPPA., AGA)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.27754/2018 DATED 11/01/2021 AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AS PRAYED BY THE APPELLANT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGEMENT
This intra-court appeal calls in question a learned Single Judge’s order dated 11.1.2021 whereby, appellant’s W.P.No.27754/2018 (S-RES) has been negatived. In the said petition, the appellant had prayed for a Writ of Mandamus to enlist his name as the Pourakaarmikaas and grant all service benefits such as regularization, pay fitment & arrears.
vehemently argues that the name of his client figured in the List of Pourakaarmikaas and a copy of that was issued
by the custodian of the records, on an RTI application being made. That being the position, there was absolutely no scope for the learned Single Judge to doubt the authenticity of the List and therefore, deny relief to the appellant. Learned AGA appearing for the respondents resists the appeal pointing out that the learned Single Judge having perused the original records, has entered a finding as to fraud, fabrication & duplicity; if there is difference between what emerges from the original file and
what comes out from the copies of the documents furnished, the former has to be acted upon in preference to the latter. So contending, she seeks dismissal of the Writ Appeal.
“Since there is a dispute with regard to the document at Annexure A, this Court summoned the original register maintained at the office of the fourth respondent to verify as to whose name appears at Sl.No.18 and the same was produced by the fourth respondent for the Court's perusal. On an examination of the register it clearly showed the name of one Anjanappa at Sl.No.18 for having been appointed on 08.04.1992 and dead on the date of issuance of the official memorandum dated 05.03.1996. The original of the official memorandum was also perused and the same fact was noticed. Thus, the petitioner has produced a document which is fabricated and has impersonated a dead employee by name Anjanappa whose name is found at SI.No.18 in the original records and not the name of the petitioner.”
observation at para 10 of the impugned judgment
“The petitioner claims to have completed 36 years of service as a Pourakarmika in the fourth respondent and the age of the petitioner in the affidavit while filing the writ petition is 52 years, which would mean that the petitioner was appointed as a Pourakarmika at the age of 16 years which is far from probability as none of the persons who were regularized in the document dated 05.03.1996 were below the age of 18 years when they were appointed. Therefore, there can be no shadow of a doubt that the petitioner has played fraud on this Court by producing a fabricated document, twining a story of his appointment and seeking service benefits.”
NC: 2023:KHC:43212-DB WA No. 471 of 2022
We are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge was lenient in not initiating any action in criminal law against the appellant. However, that being the matter of discretion, we do not propose to upset it in the totality of circumstances of the case.
In the above circumstances, this Appeal being devoid of merits, is liable to be and accordingly, dismissed, costs having been very reluctantly made easy.
Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/JUDGE
Snb, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should set aside the order of the Single Judge which dismissed the writ petition seeking regularization and service benefits.
Whether the fabrication of documents showing appointment as a Pourakarmika justifies dismissal of the intra-court appeal.
Whether criminal action ought to have been initiated against the appellant for producing a fabricated document.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri. Raja, S/o Sanjeevaiah
The Secretary, Department of Urban Development
The Director, Department of Municipal Administration
The Deputy Commissioner, Tumkur
The Commissioner, Tumkur Mahanagara Palike
Prasanna B. Varale
Krishna S Dixit
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
