Dismissed¶60

Sri. Kiran R.G. v. Office of Zilla Panchayath

Karnataka HC15 Oct 2025WA/185/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Division Bench (D K Singh and Rajesh Rai K, JJ.), WA No. 185 of 2024 (S-RES), decided 15.10.2025 - Gram Panchayat Attender appointment based on SSLC marks; more meritorious candidate (72.93% vs 57.44%) wrongly excluded for want of SSLC marks sheet though PUC marks sheet presupposed SSLC qualification; delayed challenge to illegal appointment entertained (illegal appointment cannot be validated by lapse of time); political influence plea rejected as both applications in time (09.03.2020, 20.03.2020); writ appeal dismissed; Karnataka High Court Act S.4; W.P.No.5361/2022; Geetha Dattatreya Gokarn case (W.P.No.103063/2021) cited and not accepted.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellant; the writ appeal is dismissed and pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. ¶60

Sri. Kiran R.G. Vs Office of Zilla Panchayath — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellant; the writ appeal is dismissed and pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶60

Issue for consideration

Whether the contesting respondent (respondent No.5), who secured 72.93% in SSLC against the selected appellant's 57.44%, was wrongly excluded from appointment to the post of Attender in respondent No.3-Gram Panchayat despite not furnishing the SSLC marks sheet. +2 more

¶42

Court's answer

On comparison of SSLC marks, the contesting respondent (72.93%) is more meritorious than the selected appellant (57.44%).

¶41

Ratio / Principle

Non-furnishing of the SSLC marks sheet did not disqualify the contesting respondent, as his second PUC marks sheet presupposes that he had qualified the SSLC.

¶54

Key takeaways

The contesting respondent was more meritorious and was wrongly excluded from appointment to the post of Attender in respondent No.3-Panchayat; the learned Single Judge committed no error requiring interference.ratio¶59
An illegal appointment cannot get validation even if it is challenged after some point of time; hence the writ petition filed after two years was properly entertained.ratio¶58
There is no merit in the contention that the contesting respondent exercised political influence to get his name included; both applications were filed well within time.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal (S-RES) under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act against the order dated 23.09.2023 in W.P.No.5361/2022 concerning appointment to the post of Attender in Rudrapatna Gram Panchayat (Arakalgud taluk, Hassan district), where selection was based on SSLC marks. Held: (i) the contesting respondent, who secured 72.93%, was more meritorious than the selected appellant (57.44%) and had been wrongly excluded; (ii) non-furnishing of the SSLC marks sheet was immaterial, as his second PUC marks sheet (submitted in 2017) presupposed an SSLC pass; (iii) an illegal appointment cannot get validation even if challenged after some point of time, so the writ petition filed after two years was rightly entertained; (iv) the plea of political influence failed, both applications (09.03.2020 and 20.03.2020) being in time. Appeal dismissed; pending interlocutory applications disposed of. The precedent of The Selection Authority and Secretary vs. Smt. Geetha Dattatreya Gokarn (W.P.No.103063/2021, dated 23.02.2022), relied on by the appellant's counsel against entertainment of the belated petition, was not accepted by the Court.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:40884-DB WA No. 185 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶10

WRIT APPEAL NO. 185 OF 2024 (S-RES)

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

SRI. KIRAN R.G. S/O R M GOVINDE GOWDA ATTENDER AT RUDRAPATNA GRAM PANCHAYAT AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS R/AT RUDRAPATNA VILLAGE ARAKALGUD TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 102.

¶13

…APPELLANT

¶14

(BY SRI. CHANDRAKANTH R GOULAY, ADVOCATE)

¶15

Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

AND:

¶17

OFFICE OF ZILLA PANCHAYATH HASSAN HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201.

¶18

EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYAT ARAKALGUD, ARAKALGUD TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 102.

¶19

PRESIDENT RUDRAPATNA GRAM PANCHAYAT ARAKALGUD TALUK

¶20

HASSAN DISTRICT-573 102.

¶21

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:40884-DB WA No. 185 of 2024

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER

¶24

RUDRAPATNA GRAM PANCHAYAT ARAKALGUD TALUK

¶25

HASSAN DISTRICT-573 102.

¶26

SRI. SACHIDANANDA A S/O AMASEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS R/AT ANANDUR VILLAGE RAMANATHAPURA HOBLI ARAKALAGUD TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 102.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI. A.N. NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R4,

¶29

SRI. VIJAYKUMAR T, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶30

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE MADE ON 23/09/2023 IN WP NO.5361/2022.

¶31

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

¶33

and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶34

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:40884-DB WA No. 185 of 2024

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶38

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶39

The present writ appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 23.09.2023 passed in W.P.No.5361/2022.

¶40

The matter relates to the appointment to the post of Attender in respondent No.3-Gram Panchayat. The selection to the post was to be made on the basis of the marks secured in SSLC examination. The contesting respondent's application was not considered by the authorities on the ground that he did not furnished SSLC marks sheet, whereas he had submitted PUC marks sheet in 2017 itself which would presuppose passing of the SSLC by the contesting respondent.

¶41

It is not in dispute that the contesting respondent is more meritorious than the appellant who got selected as the appellant had secured 57.44% marks, whereas the contesting respondent had secured 72.93% marks.

¶42

The contesting respondent's case is that he was wrongly excluded and the appellant was incorrectly appointed.

¶43

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:40884-DB WA No. 185 of 2024

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

If the merit of two candidates is to be compared, the contesting respondent is more meritorious in terms of the marks secured by two candidates in SSLC examination.

¶47

Considering the said submissions, the learned Single Judge directed the respondent-authority i.e., the Panchayat to compare the marks obtained by the appellant and the contesting respondent in SSLC examination and if the contesting respondent was found to be more meritorious, he should be offered an appointment.

¶48

In compliance of the direction, the Panchayat compared the marks of two candidates and having found that the contesting respondent was more meritorious, he has been offered an appointment.

¶49

We do not agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the contesting respondent exercised the political influence to get his application included.

¶50

We have perused the records, from which, it is evident that the contesting respondent had filed his application on 09.03.2020 and the petitioner had filed the application on

¶51

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:40884-DB WA No. 185 of 2024

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

20.03.2020. The application filed by the contesting respondent and the appellant were well within time. If the contesting respondent could have exercised the political influence, he would have been appointed and not the appellant. Therefore, there is no merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the contesting respondent had exercised the political influence to get his name included.

¶54

Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the respondent did not file SSLC marks sheet along with application. However, there is no dispute that the contesting respondent had filed his second PUC marks sheet which presupposes that he had qualified the SSLC.

¶55

The another submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that since the contesting respondent has challenged the appointment of the appellant after two years, the Writ Petition ought not to have been entertained. In support of his case, he relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of The Selection Authority and Secretary vs. Smt. Geetha Dattatreya Gokarn in W.P.No.103063/2021 dated 23.02.2022.

¶56

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:40884-DB WA No. 185 of 2024

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

We do not accept such a submission in as much as illegal appointment cannot get validation even if it is challenged after some point of time.

¶59

As the contesting respondent is more meritorious and he was wrongly excluded from the appointment to the post of Attender in respondent No.3-Panchayat, we do not find that

¶60

the learned Single Judge has committed any error which requires interference by this Court in the present appeal and thus, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed .

¶61

Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶62

SD/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶63

SD/(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

¶64

HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

Sri. Kiran R.G. v. Office of Zilla Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Kiran R.G. v. Office of Zilla Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Manjegowda Vs the Divisional Controller

M/S Jamia Musjid and Muslim Vs the State of Karnataka

Narasimha Murthy Naik Vs J R Srinivas

M/S Karnataka Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. Vs Smt T Nalini

Sri M Ramaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Vinayaka Madenahalli Vs the Managing Director