Disposed

Sri Marappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Sept 2024WP/26747/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Pourakarmika workers left out of direct recruitment under the Special Rules, 2022 challenged their exclusion based on absence from work for over 90 days, a disqualification not found in the Rules. The High Court directed reconsideration of their candidature in light of the Rules within three months.

What did the court decide?

Respondents No.2 and 3 directed to reconsider petitioners' candidature for direct recruitment per Rules, 2022 within three months.

Sri Marappa Vs the State of Karnataka — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:37284 WP No. 26747 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 26747 OF 2023 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI MARAPPA, S/O SHANKARA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/A WARD NO.2, AMBEDKAR NAGAR, RAMANAGARAM, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 159.

¶8

SRI SURYA B, S/O BANNERI SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/A 265, PULIKESH ROAD, B B KERI, MANI MOHALLA, MYSORE - 570 015.

¶9

Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

SRI NAGESHA P, S/O PENCHALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, NO.360/3, JAI BHEEM NAGAR, NEAR RANGAPPA CIRCLE, BHADRAVATHI, SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 301.

¶11

SRI HEMANTHARAJ R, S/O RAMACHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/A 142, AMBEDKAR NAGAR, RAMANAGARAM, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 159.

¶12

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:37284 WP No. 26747 of 2023

¶13

SRI PRAVIKUMAR, S/O ABRAHAM, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, NO.138, WARD NO.2, 3RD CROSS, NEAR ANNAMMA TEMPLE, AMBEDKAR NAGAR, RAMANAGARAM, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 159.

¶14

SRI MOHAN V, S/O VIJAY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, WARD NO.2, 3RD CROSS, NEAR ANNAMMA TEMPLE, AMBEDKAR NAGAR, RAMANAGARAM, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT - 562 159.

¶15

SRI BALINENI RAMANAPPA, S/O B REDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/A WARD NO.2, AMBEDKAR NAGAR, RAMANAGARAM, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT - 562 159.

¶16

SRI RAKESH, CARE OF PADMANABHA M, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, KARABALA MAIDANA, J C ROADS, CHANNAPATNA, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 160.

¶17

…PETITIONERS

¶18

(BY SRI SRINIVAS MANOHAR KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

¶19

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:37284 WP No. 26747 of 2023

¶20

AND:

¶21

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF TOWN PLANNING, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶22

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, (AN ALSO THE PROJECT DIRECTOR DISTRICT URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL), RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, RAMANAGARA - 562 159.

¶23

THE TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, BIDADI, BIDADI MAIN ROAD, BIDADI - 562 109.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI PRINCE ISAC, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI RAMESH KUMAR R V, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶26

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THEIR CASE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER AS POURAKARMIKA ON A PERMANENT BASIS UNDER THE DIRECT RECRUITMENT RULES. GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS NOT TO DISTURB THE PETITIONERS FROM WORKING AND RENDERING SERVICE AS POURAKARMIKA PENDING DISPOSAL OF THE ABOVE WRIT PETITION.

¶27

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:37284 WP No. 26747 of 2023

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

The petitioners have sought for a writ in the nature of Mandamus to direct the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider their case for issuance of order of appointment order to the post of Pourakarmika on permanent basis as per direct recruitment rules.

¶33

The petitioners contend that they are all working as Pourakarmika in respondent No.3. They contend that amongst them, the petitioner Nos.2 and 6 were working from the year 2016 and the other petitioners were working from the year 2017. They contend that they were issued with Identification cards (I. D cards) by respondent No.3. They contend that respondent No.1 introduced a scheme for direct recruitment to the vacant posts of Pourakarmika at respondent No.3, Karnataka Municipalities (Recruitment of City Municipal Councils, Town Municipal Councils and Town Panchayaths) (Special) Rules, 2022 (henceforth referred to as 'Rules, 2022). As part of the said scheme, 44 vacancies were to be filled up through the direct recruitment in Town Municipal Council, Bidadi, Ramanagara District. The petitioner contends that as per the said rules, they were all eligible to be appointed to the

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:37284 WP No. 26747 of 2023

¶35

post of Pourakarmika and to that effect, a list of 42 names was prepared, which included the names of petitioners.

¶36

Respondent No.2 published an order dated 08.11.2023, along with a list of 29 candidates out of 42 candidates who given the benefit of direct recruitment. The petitioners and few others were not appointed and were left out. The petitioners contend that after perusing the order dated 08.11.2023, they realized that there was no basis for excluding their names, though they were similarly placed as the persons who were appointed. The petitioner contends that being aggrieved by the discriminatory treatment meted out to them, they submitted a representation dated 13.11.2023 to the respondent. Since that is not considered, the petitioners are before this Court seeking for a direction to the respondents to consider their representation.

¶37

The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the above contentions and claimed that the petitioners are also entitled to be treated alike and prayed that directions be issued to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider the representation in accordance with direct recruitment rules, referred supra.

¶38

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:37284 WP No. 26747 of 2023

¶39

Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that as per the request of the selection committee the respondent No.3 prepared a list of 44 employees and forwarded it to the Project Director, Project Development Cell, Ramanagara on 13.03.2023. Thereafter, necessary details of the employees who were working between 2021 to 2023, was sent to the Project Director. It is contended that the petitioners were not selected as they did not possess the required eligibility criteria and they had unauthorizedly absented from work for more than 90 days. It is contended that in the proceedings held under the Chairmanship of respondent No.2 on 08.11.2023, which was attended by the Commissioners and Chief Officers of Municipal Councils of Ramanagara District, it was resolved that those employees who had absented from work for more than 90 days would not be considered for recruitment.

¶40

If the Rules, 2022 prescribe a procedure for selection of candidates, such procedure should be applied to all candidates. The Rules, 2022, prescribes the eligibility criteria and procedure for disqualification, all applicants including the petitioners had to be checked whether they had the eligibility criteria and did not suffer from any disqualification. The

¶41

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:37284 WP No. 26747 of 2023

¶42

respondent No.2 cannot rely upon the proceedings dated 08.11.2023 to disqualify petitioners on the ground that they had absented from work for more than 90 days. This disqualification must be incorporated in the Rules, 2022. Therefore, the claim of the respondent No.3 that the petitioners were not selected as they had absented from work is arbitrary and falls foul of the Rules, 2022.

¶43

In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed off , the respondent No.2 and respondent No.3 are directed to reconsider the candidature of the petitioners for direct recruitment to the post of Pourakarmikas of respondent No.3 in the light of the Rules, 2022 and the observations made in the above paragraph, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶44

In view of the disposal of this writ petition, I.A No.1/2024 does not survive for consideration.

¶45

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶46

THM/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

Sri Marappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Marappa 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

Sri Shreeshail Girimallappa Marol Vs the Managing Director

Sri R Padmanabhan Vs the State of Karnataka

V Taranath Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Mohan Gowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Devegowda T M Vs Managing Director

R Nagarajaiah Vs the Managing Director