The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging appointment orders in the education sector. The court held the petition not maintainable as the impugned order had been confirmed and finalized by the Appellate Authority, leaving no question pending for judicial review.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 13321 OF 2012 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT M C GEETHA C/O A.M.CHANDRAIAH AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS SJSS KRUPA, 100 FEET ROAD NEAR HUDCO, VINOBHANAGAR SHIMOGA-577204
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAGUPATHY K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by ALBHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.PRATHIBHA.R.K, AGA FOR R1-R4; SRI.P.N.HARISH, ADVOCATE FOR R5; SRI.S.V.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R6)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DT.18.11.2011 ISSUED BY THE R6 PRODUCED AS ANN-A AND QUASH THE ORDER DT.26.3.12 ISSUED BY THE R3, PRODUCED AS ANN-B AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned petition is filed seeking for the
following reliefs:
“ i) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the endorsement dated 18.11.2011 issued by the 6th respondent bearing No.CES No.67/2011-12 (produced as Annexure-A); and
ii) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the Order dated 26.03.2012 issued by the 3rd respondent bearing No.SHITHA2 Bo, Hu, Anu 39/10-11 (produced as Annexure-B); and
iii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 6th respondent to appoint the petitioner; and
iv) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd & 3rd respondent to appoint and approve the appointment of the petitioner;
v) Issue such other writs, orders or directions as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case.”
2. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5
and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 have filed statement of objections and have brought to the notice of this Court that the captioned petition is not maintainable as the impugned order dated 26.03.2012 passed by the respondent No.3 appointing respondent No.5 was subject matter of appeal at the instance of the petitioner. Along with statement of objections, respondent
NC: 2024:KHC:259 WP No. 13321 of 2012
Nos.5 and 6 both have placed on record the order passed
by the Appellate Authority in Appeal No.28/2011.
consideration, the captioned petition does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, dismissed.
CA
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34
Sd/JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition is maintainable given that the impugned order was confirmed by the Appellate Authority and attained finality.
Whether the petitioner can challenge an appointment order that has become final through appellate dismissal.
SMT M C GEETHA
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THE COMMISSIONER DEPT. OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
THE DIRECTOR STATE EDUCATION RESEARCH & TRAINING CENTRE
THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT EDUCATION & TRAINING CENTRE
MAKKALA VIDYA SAMSTHE (REGD)
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
