Dismissed

Sri Chandrashekar Y K v. the Zilla Panchayath

Karnataka HC1 Jul 2024WP/8556/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition seeking appointment in a backlog vacancy of Panchayat Secretary. The Court held that the petitioner failed to approach the Court immediately after the relevant order as required by law, resulting in a significant lapse of time that prejudiced the claim.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was rejected in view of the respondent's failure to approach the Court immediately after the endorsement of 18.06.2010.

Sri Chandrashekar Y K Vs the Zilla Panchayath — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:24304 WP No. 8556 of 2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8556 OF 2013 (S-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI CHANDRASHEKAR Y K S/O KARIBASAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/A SOKKE VILLAGE, JAGALUR TALUK DAVANAGERE

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. RANGANATH S JOIS ., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by ANAND N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE ZILLA PANCHAYATH DAVANAGERE DISTRICT DAVANAGERE, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT

¶14

THE CHAIRMAN, SELECTING AUTHORITY & THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYATH, DAVANAGERE DAVANAGERE DISTRICT

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. N R JAGADEESWARA, ADVOCATE)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:24304 WP No. 8556 of 2013

¶19

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS RELATING TO THE COMMUNICATION OF THE GOVT. DATED 18.6.2010 VIDE ANNEXURE-L PERUSE THE SAME AND DECLARE NON PREPARATION OF ADDITIONAL/WAITING LIST AND FAILURE TO ISSUE APPOINTMENT TO THE PETITIONER AS BEING CLEARLY VIOLATIVE OF KCS [GENERAL RECRUITMENT] RULES 1977 AND KARNATAKA CIVIL SERVICES [DIRECT RECRUITMENT TO CLASS III POSTS] 1973 AND ALSO BEING ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN GROSS VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE THEREFORE BEING DISCRIMINATIVE AND VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14 & 16 & 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DISPOSAL, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner, responding to the Notification issued by the first respondent in the year 2003 to fill up 14 backlog vacancies for the post of Panchayat Secretaries , has applied but he is not one of the 13 selected candidates, and because out of the 13 selected only 7 have reported to duty, the petitioner

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:24304 WP No. 8556 of 2013

¶24

has filed his representation in the year 2007 stating that the respondents ought to have published additional selection list, that if such additional selection list was published, he would have had an opportunity and that the failure has resulted in denial of opportunity.

¶25

The petitioner's prayer for different reliefs in this present petition is in this context, and one of the petitioner’s prayers is for directions to the respondents to appoint the petitioner as against a backlog vacancy that remained unfulfilled because the selected candidates did not respond. Sri. Ranganatha S. Jois, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that this Court must pass just orders because the respondents have not published additional selection list as is required in law and that appointment orders to the selected candidates are also issued in installments.

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:24304 WP No. 8556 of 2013

¶28

As against these submissions Sri. N. R.

¶29

Jagadeeswara, the learned counsel for the respondents, submits that responding to the petitioner's representation in the year 2007, Endorsements have been issued on 18.06.2010 [ Annexure-L ], but the petitioner has approached this Court only in the year 2013, and therefore, there are latches on the part of the petitioner in not approaching this Court at the earliest opportunity.

¶30

The rival submissions are considered. There is nothing brought on record to justify an inference that the petitioner could have been on the additional list if it was published. Further, this Court must opine that the petitioner's failure to approach this Court immediately after 18.06.2010, without placing on record the reasons that would justify the failure to approach this Court, will have a deleterious effect on the petitioner’s grievance, and this

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:24304 WP No. 8556 of 2013

¶33

consequence is exaggerated with a lapse of another eleven years in prosecuting this petition.

¶34

In the light of the afore, the petition stands

¶35

rejected.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

Sri Chandrashekar Y K v. the Zilla Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Chandrashekar Y K v. the Zilla Panchayath

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 Basappa M Bhovi Vs the Registrar

Sanjay C.A. Vs the Commissioner of Public Instructions

K N Ramappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Akshata Mohan Phadake Vs Union of India

Smt Lalitha T Vs the Chief Commissioner

Smt. Saritha Vs the State of Karnataka