Disposed

Sri Rajashekar G M v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Nov 2024WP/18761/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Scheduled Caste candidates challenged the State Administrative Tribunal's rejection of their applications seeking consideration of representations for appointment to eight unfilled Assistant Public Prosecutor posts. The High Court held that Article 350 obliges authorities to consider citizens' representations and directed the second respondent to consider them within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Second respondent directed to consider petitioners' representations for the unfilled APP posts and communicate result within 6 weeks; costs made easy.

Sri Rajashekar G M Vs the State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:47243-DB WP No. 18761 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024 PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI WRIT PETITION NO. 18761 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. RAJASHEKAR G.M., S/O MAHADEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT HIREKABBUR VILLAGE, TATTUR POST, SORABA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 433.

¶9

SRI. BASAVARAJU H.M., S/O MALLAIAH H., AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT AMBEDKAR NAGARA, N R PURA, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 134.

¶10

Digitally signed by CHETAN B C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SRI. NANJUNDAPPA S/O MALLESHA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT CHIKKA KURUBARAHALLI, BYPASS ROAD, JYOTHINAGARA POST, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 102.

¶12

BHAVYA S., D/O SIDDAIAH S., AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, DOOR NO.1732, MALEMAHADESHWARA NILAYA, N.M.C. HOSAMANE, BHADRAVATHI, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 301.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. BASAVARAJA PATEL G.K.,ADVOCATE)

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:47243-DB WP No. 18761 of 2024

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶18

THE DIRECTOR, SELECTION COMMITTEE TO THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR -CUMASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER, DEPARTMENT OF PROSECUTION AND GOVERNMENT LITIGATION, 6^TH FLOOR, KHB COMPLEX, KAVERI BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. KHAMROZ KHAN, AGA)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO i) CALL FOR THE RECORDS RELATING TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY KSAT AT BENGALURU DATED 28.11.2023 MADE IN APPLN No. 4826-4829/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PERUSE AND QUASH THE SAID ORDER AS ERRONEOUS AND CONTRARY TO LAW, AND ALLOW THE APPLN. No. 48264829/2023 THEREIN AND ETC.,

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT)

¶25

Petitioners belonging to Scheduled Caste are knocking at

¶26

the doors of this Court against the State Administrative

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:47243-DB WP No. 18761 of 2024

¶28

Tribunal's Order dated 28.11.2023 whereby their Application Nos.4826 to 4829/2023 have been rejected. In all these Applications, essentially they had sought for consideration of their representations wherein, they had requested for their accommodation in the 8 un-filled posts of Assistant Public Prosecutor of the State.

¶29

Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners submits that innocuous prayer of the kind could not have been turned down by the Tribunal; justice of the case warranted a direction being issued to the Respondents to consider their representations. He also highlights that under Article 350 of the Constitution of India, there is a right given to every citizen to make representation to the authorities and when one such is moved, the jurisdictional authority has to take a call on that in accordance with law and further inform result thereof to the person concerned. Learned AGA on request having accepted notice for the official respondents, opposes the petition contenting that already the recruitment process is half a through and at that stage, representations of the kind cannot be considered.

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:47243-DB WP No. 18761 of 2024

¶31

Having heard the learned counsel for parties and having perused the Petition papers, we are broadly in agreement with the submission made by the learned counsel for petitioners. Article 350 of the Constitution of India mandates that the jurisdictional authorities are bound to consider representation of citizens airing their grievances in accordance with law and in a reasonable period. The said Article has the following text:

¶32

"Every person shall be entitled to submit a representation for the redress of any grievance to any officer or authority of the Union or a State n any of the languages used in the Union or in the State, as the case may be."

¶33

In that view of the matter we are of the considered opinion that

¶34

the Tribunal ought to have directed the consideration of subject representations at the hands of answering Respondents.

¶35

In the above circumstances, this petition is disposed off directing the second respondent to consider or cause to be considered by the competent authority, Petitioners' representations and inform its result to them by Registered Postal Acknowledgment Due within an outer limit of 6 weeks. All contentions of the parties are kept open.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:47243-DB WP No. 18761 of 2024

¶38

It is open to the competent authority who has to comply this direction, to solicit any document or information from the side of the petitioners or from the other officials as are required for due consideration of the subject representations; however

¶39

in that guise, delay shall not be brooked.

¶40

Costs made easy.

¶41

Sd/(KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE

¶42

Sd/(C M JOSHI) JUDGE

¶43

LDC

¶44

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

Sri Rajashekar G M v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Rajashekar G M 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Shailaja K L Vs the State of Karnataka

The Regional Manager Vs R Kodandaram

National Institute of Mental Health Vs Smt S Anitha Joseph

Bank of India Vs Smt. C. Nagaveni

Sadashivappa Vs the Government of Karnataka

Sri. Lokesh. S. L. Vs the State of Karnataka