Dismissed

Sri Manohar v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Aug 2024WP/9051/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal's order rejecting the petitioner's grievance regarding revised key answers for the post of Hindi Lecturer. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's order, stating no legal right exists to object to revised key answers as it would prevent selection finality, and noted the petitioner failed to implead necessary parties.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri Manohar Vs State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:31642-DB WP No. 9051 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024 PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO. 9051 OF 2020 (S-KSAT)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI MANOHAR S/O MAALAPPA POOJARI AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT NO.1/58/2, PADANOOR GRAMA SANNURU POST, CHITTAPURA TALUK, KALABURGI DISTRICT 585 102.

¶9

PRESENTLY WORKING AS HEAD CONSTABLE SAMAPNGIRAMANAGARA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU -560 027.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI R.B. SADASHIVAPPA, ADV.)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (PRIMARY AND SECONDARY)

¶15

M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE 560 001.

¶16

THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR KARNATAKA EXAMINATIONS AUTHORITY SAMPIGE ROAD, 18^TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU -560 012.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI C.N. MAHADESHWARAN, AGA)

¶19

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 30.09.2019, 04.10.2019, 11.10.2019 AND 16.11.2019 AS PRODUCED IN ANNEXURE-Q, R, S

¶20

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:31642-DB WP No. 9051 of 2020

¶21

AND T AND QUASH THE SELECTION LIST DATED 13.12.2019 FOR THE POST OF HINDI LECTURER (PUC) PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-P. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND

¶22

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

¶25

Petitioner who was a candidate for the post of Lecturer in Pre-University College in pursuance to Notification dated 08.05.2015 (Annexure-A) is before this Court in this writ petition questioning the order dated 18.11.2019 in Application No.6144/2019 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short, ‘Tribunal’) with a further prayer for a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to consider the representations dated 30.09.2019, 04.10.2019, 11.10.2019 and 16.11.2019 and also to quash the selection list dated 13.12.2019 for the post of Hindi Lecturer (PUC), produced at Annexure-P.

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:31642-DB WP No. 9051 of 2020

¶27

Heard the learned counsel Sri.R.B.Sadashivappa for petitioner and Sri.C.N.Mahadeshwaran, learned

¶28

Additional Government Advocate for respondents. Perused the writ petition papers.

¶29

Petitioner was before the Tribunal in Application No.6144/2019 with a prayer to direct the respondent No.2 to consider representations/objections dated 04.10.2019 and 11.10.2019 at Annexures-A22 and A23 to the revised revised/final key answers and add 3 marks in respect of incorrect key answers, before publication of final results for selection to the post of Lecturer in Government PreUniversity Colleges in pursuance to recruitment notification dated 07.11.2018. Tribunal under impugned order dated 18.11.2019 rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner’s grievance is against revised or final key answers and there is no provision in law for entertaining objections to revised key answers and if such a course were to be adopted, no selection would attain finality. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before this Court.

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:31642-DB WP No. 9051 of 2020

¶31

Under Annexure-A, Notification dated

¶32

08.05.2015, applications were invited from the eligible candidates to fill up the post of Lecturers in various subjects. Petitioner applied for the post of Lecturer in Hindi and participated in the competitive examination conducted by the second respondent. Subsequent to examination, second respondent – Karnataka Examinations Authority published key answers. Petitioner is said to have submitted his objections. Based on the objections submitted by the petitioner as well as others, second respondent published revised key answers. To the revised key answers, petitioner again submitted his representation stating that some of the revised key answers are not correct. As the second respondent failed to consider the said representation, petitioner was before the Tribunal. The Tribunal rightly rejected the application of the petitioner holding that there is no provision for submitting objections to the revised key answers and if such a course were to be adopted, no selection would attain finality. A mandamus could be issued where it is shown that such

¶33

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:31642-DB WP No. 9051 of 2020

¶34

person has legal right and that the authority has failed to perform its legal duty. The petitioner herein has failed to establish legal right to submit representation and corresponding legal duty on the part of the respondents.

¶35

We do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal, for the reason that final selection list is published in the year 2019 and appointment has already taken place. Moreover, petitioner has not made necessary parties to the application before the Tribunal or before this Court. There is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly writ petition stands rejected.

¶36

SD/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

¶37

SD/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶38

NC CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12

Sri Manohar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sri Manohar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Kariyappa @ Byrappa Vs Smt Chikkamma

Eranaika Vs Chanappa

The Secretary Vs Sri S Chandrashekar

Avinash S Vs Karnataka Public Service Commission

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri S Devaraj

Smt. Bhavana. S Vs the State of Karnataka