Petitioner challenged his rejection and the appointment of respondent no.5 as Village Assistant, arguing only hereditary village office holders' family members were eligible. The court held the circular gave mere preference, not exclusivity, and that the underage petitioner lacked standing to challenge the selection.
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: 2024:KHC-D:12654 WP No. 104256 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
WRIT PETITION NO.104256 OF 2022 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
MUTTAPPA SHRISHAIL WALIKAR, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NIL, RESIDING AT YANKANCHI VILLAGE, TALUKA AND DISTRICT: BAGALKOT – 587 103.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI SUNIL S. DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI PRAKASH ANDANIMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI P.N.HATTI, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4; SRI JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
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 QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.4 BEARING NO. �� � � � � � � � � ��� ��������������������� �
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12654 WP No. 104256 of 2022
����������� AS PER ANNEXURE-E. ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 4 TO APPOINT THE PETITIONER AS ELIGIBLE CANDIDATE FOR THE POST OF VILLAGE ASSISTANT OF YANKANCHI VILLAGE OF BAGALKOT DISTRICT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
Challenging order dated 30.04.2022 passed by
respondent no.4 at Annexure-E, and seeking for writ of mandamus directing respondents no.1 to 4 to appoint petitioner as Village Assistant Yanganchi village of Bagalakote, this writ petition is filed.
copy of experience certificate at Annexures-H, J and K. However, impugned order dated 30.04.2022 had passed at Annexure-E appointing respondent no.5 as Village Assistant and also referring to rejection of petitioner’s candidature on ground that petitioner had not yet attained minimum age for appointment.
present selection process would have become eligible. On
said ground sought for quashing impugned order.
(2011) 12 SCC 85, wherein at paragraph no.29, it was held selection process has to be conducted strictly in accordance with stipulated selection procedure and when a particular method/parameters are mentioned, they have to be followed without relaxation. Further even, in case, power to relax were contained in rules, same should have been mentioned in notification.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12654 WP No. 104256 of 2022
respondent no.5 was illegal. On said ground, sought for allowing writ petition.
Assistant, but was his nephew. Therefore, petitioner cannot claim to be descendant of family of Village Assistant. It was submitted in absence of proper and eligible candidature, petitioner could not question selection of respondent no.5.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12654 WP No. 104256 of 2022
selection of respondent no.5 as Village Assistant. Admittedly, selection is in pursuance of selection notification at Annexure-B. Indeed, condition no.3 and 7 would provide that applications were invited from persons belonging to family of Hereditary Village Office holders. But, Circular at Annexure-L which provides detailed procedure for selection at paragraph no.1, referring to Circular dated 22.03.1979, issued by Government would provide for ‘preference’ to family members of Hereditary Village Office Holders. Preference would only be first claim and not ouster of persons not belonging to family of Hereditary Village Office holders.
Talukdar’s case referred supra, it is seen while considering selection process initiated by Public Service Commission for selection to various Government posts, notification issued had not prescribed any reservation in favour of persons with disabilities. A Public Interest Litigation having been filed for direction to provide reservation in favour of persons with disabilities, High Court had directed issuance of fresh advertisement by stipulating reservation. In pursuance thereof, reservation was accorded. But Respondent no.1, who had applied in pursuance of original notification, had not submitted any documents regarding his disability. Even after issuance of fresh notification, he had not submitted mandatory documents to substantiate his candidature under reservation for persons with disabilities.
direction issued by High Court for consideration of claim of respondent no.1 as candidate with disability under reservation category was hold to be not justified. When, selection norms only provide preference, petitioner’s contention that even in absence of eligible candidate belonging to family of Hereditary Village Office holders, respondents cannot consider application of other persons would not be justified. Respondents would not be obliged to scuttle selection process and re-notify.
On above grounds, writ petition stands dismissed.
EM,VB/CT-ASC
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13
2 issues framed by the court
Whether preference to family members of hereditary village office holders amounts to exclusion of other candidates from selection as Village Assistant.
Whether an underage rejected candidate has locus to challenge the selection of another candidate.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bendanga Talukdar Vs. Saifudaullah Khan and OthersDistinguished¶13
(2011) 12 SCC 85 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Muttappa Shrishail Walikar
The Regional Commissioner, Belagavi
The Deputy Commissioner, Bagalkot
The Assistant Commissioner, Bagalkot
The Tahasildar, Bagalkot
Sangondeppa Lekavva Dodamani
Ravi V. Hosmani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
