Disposed

Karnataka Public Service Commission v. Mr Sadashiva Karajagi

Karnataka HC10 Jan 2023WP/16535/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by the Karnataka Public Service Commission to quash a Tribunal order. The petitioner argued a candidate produced certificates belatedly. The Court held that new grounds and documents could not be entertained as they were not raised before the Tribunal, reserving liberty to prefer a review.

What did the court decide?

liberty reserved to the petitioner (KPSC) to approach the Tribunal by way of review.

Karnataka Public Service Commission Vs Mr… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 16535 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH WRIT PETITION NO. 16535 OF 2021 (S-KSAT)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶9

KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION UDYOGA SOUDHA, PARK HOUSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. REUBEN JACOB, SR. ADV. FOR SRI M.N.PAWAN KUMAR., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

MR SADASHIVA KARAJAGI AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, S/O SANGAPPA KARAJAGI RESIDING AT POST LONI (B.K.) INDI TALUK, VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT-586204.

¶14

…RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE FINAL ORDER DATED 05.06.2020 IN APPLICATION No-7064/2015 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY TO DISMISS THE APPLICATION No.7064/2015 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT.

¶15

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, G.NARENDAR J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

WP No. 16535 of 2021

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Heard the learned senior counsel Sri Reuben Jacob along with the learned counsel Sri Pawan Kumar M. N. for the petitioner.

¶20

Petitioner is the State Public Service Commission and before this Court being aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal in Application No.7064/2015 dated 05.06.2020.

¶21

The short point that was canvassed is that; the relevant certificates have been produced belatedly. The certificates demonstrating his eligibility as a rural candidate and the other certificate, which demonstrates that he had undergone education in Kannada medium, were available with him on 25.09.2014 and the last date for filing application is 25.10.2014. The State Public Service Commission could not have rejected his application on the ground of non production. It is seen that the post is of a Computer teacher.

¶22

It is the case of the petitioner/respondent that the certificates had not been produced before them as on the date of filing of the application. The fact that the applications are

¶23

¶24

WP No. 16535 of 2021

¶25

not produced before them has not been demonstrated before the Tribunal. The learned senior counsel would submit that the petitioner maintains a check-list wherein, the signature of the applicant is affixed and the said check-list is an affirmation by the candidate of the documents that he has produced along with the application. He would submit that apart from the said check-list there is one more document which would demonstrate that the said certificates have not been produced along with the application. On a query, it is fairly submitted by the learned senior counsel that neither these documents have been produced before the Tribunal nor has this contention raised before the Tribunal. Apparently, it is a new ground and new set of documents that are sought to be relied upon to demonstrate the case. If that be the admitted position, then we are of the considered opinion that the instant writ petition could be disposed off by reserving liberty to the petitioner/KPSC to prefer a review and seek appreciation of the matter in the light of the new contentions and new set of documents that they desire to place on record.

¶26

¶27

WP No. 16535 of 2021

¶28

Accordingly, writ petition is disposed off with liberty

¶29

to the petitioner to approach the Tribunal by way of a review and seek appropriate relief.

¶30

Petition stands ordered accordingly.

¶31

In view of disposal of the petition, pending I.As. do not survive for consideration.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

CHS

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

Karnataka Public Service Commission v. Mr Sadashiva Karajagi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka Public Service Commission v. Mr Sadashiva Karajagi

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

Sri S S Ravishankar Vs Union of India

Sri Rajender Chandarappa Badiger Vs the Secretary

Sri.B.Ganesh Vs State of Karnataka

K B Balachandra Vs the State of Karnataka

D Basavalingappa Vs State of Karnataka

R Vijayababu Vs Secretary to Government