Sri Mahesha C K v. Karnataka Legislative Assembly Secretariat

Karnataka HC6 Feb 2025WP/20083/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dalayat post; Karnataka Legislative Assembly Secretariat; Notification dated 26.04.2022; backlog Scheduled Caste vacancy; 2001 Special Recruitment Rules; Rule 1(3); Rule 6; unfilled vacancies existing on date of commencement; subsequent vacancy; 2018 Act fresh select list; W.P. No. 14388/2022; zone of consideration; Article 226; endorsement 10.07.2023; endorsement 10.08.2023; writ petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

Claim to appointment under the Scheduled Caste backlog post invoking the 2001 Rules rejected; however, in terms of the Court's earlier order in W.P.No.14388/2022 and connected matters (fresh select list per the 2018 Act), the petitioner's case is to be considered if he falls within the zone of consideration. Writ petition disposed of accordingly. ¶¶53

Sri Mahesha C K Vs Karnataka Legislative Assembly… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶53

Issue for consideration

Whether the Karnataka State Civil Services (Unfilled Vacancies Reserved for SC/ST) (Special Recruitment) Rules 2001 ('2001 Rules') would have application to the recruitment notification at Annexure-B dated 26.04.2022? +1 more

¶¶43

Court's answer

Per Rule 1(3), the 2001 Rules were introduced only to fill up unfilled vacancies existing on the date of commencement of the Rules: the Cabinet Sub-Committee proceedings of 9 October 2001 record that the 2001 Rules were made to clear backlog vacancies existing as on 1 June 2001, Rule 1(3) having been inserted accordingly and the Rule 6 procedure directed to be followed only for such pre-existing backlog vacancies.

¶¶48

Ratio / Principle

Point No.1 answered in the negative: the 2001 Rules have no application to the recruitment under Notification dated 26.04.2022 — the notification does not indicate application of the 2001 Rules, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the notified Scheduled Caste backlog vacancy existed as on commencement of the 2001 Rules, and that backlog vacancy was apparently a subsequent vacancy.

¶¶48

Key takeaways

On the contention that lesser meritorious candidates were selected under general merit, this Court had already taken the view (in W.P.No.14388/2022 and connected matters, disposed 30.01.2025) directing preparation of a fresh selection list by following the provisions of the 2018 Act; in terms of that order, if the petitioner falls within the zone of consideration, his case shall be considered. Point No.2 answered partly in the affirmative.ratio¶¶52

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU (S.G. Pandit, J.), Writ Petition No. 20083 of 2023 (S-RES), decided 06.02.2025. The petitioner, a non-selected candidate (aged 39) for the post of Dalayat in the Karnataka Legislative Assembly Secretariat, challenged endorsements dated 10.07.2023 (Annexure-M) and 10.08.2023 (Annexure-N) arising from Notification dated 26.04.2022 (26 Dalayat posts, including 3 backlog posts — 1 Scheduled Caste, 2 other backward classes), seeking inclusion in the select list under the backlog SC post per Rule 6 of the Karnataka State Civil Services (Unfilled Vacancies Reserved for SC/ST) (Special Recruitment) Rules 2001. Held: Rule 1(3) of the 2001 Rules confines those Rules to filling up unfilled vacancies existing on the date of their commencement (Cabinet Sub-Committee, 09.10.2001 — backlog existing as on 01.06.2001); the SC backlog post notified on 26.04.2022 was a subsequent vacancy, hence the 2001 Rules do not apply to that recruitment (Point 1 — negative). On the plea that lesser meritorious candidates were selected under general merit, the Court relied on its order in W.P.No.14388/2022 and connected matters (30.01.2025) directing a fresh select list under the Karnataka Civil Services (Procedure for Selection of Candidates during Recruitment) Act, 2018, and directed that the petitioner be considered therein if within the zone of consideration (Point 2 — partly affirmative). Petition disposed of. Filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5483 WP No. 20083 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 20083 OF 2023 (S-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI MAHESHA C K S/O KEMPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT CHOTTANAHALLI VILLAGE, KUDAGABALU POST, DEVALAPURA HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571443. …PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SATISH K., ADV.)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

KARNATAKA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY SECRETARIAT REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001.

¶13

SRI GANGADHARA NAGANATH S/O MALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/AT SAVADI VILLAGE, RONA TALUK GADAG DISTRICT-582209.

¶14

SRI BASAVARAJU D. S/O LATE DODDAMAHIGAIAH AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT DKS DODDI, YERANGERE

¶15

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5483 WP No. 20083 of 2023

¶16

BICHAHALLI POST, KODIHALLI HOBLI KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562119.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI.REUBEN JACOB, AAG AND SMT. PRATHIBHA R.K., AGA FOR R1 R2 & R3 ARE SERVED)

¶19

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENT PERTAINING TO THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 10/07/2023 (ANNEXURE-M) AND THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 10/08/2023 (ANNEXURE-N) AND ETC.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The petitioner, a non-selected candidate for the post of Dalayat in the respondent-the Karnataka Legislative Assembly Secretariat (for short “Secretariat”) is before this Court, calling in question the endorsement dated 10.07.2023 (Annexure-M) and the impugned endorsement dated 10.08.2023 (Annexure-N). Further, the petitioner has also sought for a direction to include the name of the petitioner in the select list pertaining to the Dalayat and appoint him to the said post, with all consequential benefits.

¶24

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5483 WP No. 20083 of 2023

¶25

The brief facts of the case are that:

¶26

The respondent-Secretariat issued Notification dated 26.04.2022 (Annexure-B) calling applications to fill up various posts including the post of Dalayats. The petitioner being qualified, applied for the post of Dalayat claiming reservation under Scheduled Cast category and qualified in the written examination conducted by the respondentSecretariat having secured 43.75 marks. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that out of 26 posts of Dalayats, 3 posts were notified for backlog category and out of 3 posts, one post is for backlog Scheduled Caste and two backlog posts for other backward classes. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is aged about 39 years and respondent No.2 who is aged about 29 years is selected and appointed under one backlog Scheduled Caste category post. In terms of the Karnataka State Civil Services (Unfilled Vacancies Reserved for the Persons Belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes) (Special Recruitment) Rules 2001 (for short “2001 Rules”), the petitioner ought to

¶27

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5483 WP No. 20083 of 2023

¶28

have been selected and appointed, since he is aged about 39 years. Learned counsel invite attention of this Court to Rule 6 of 2001 Rules and submits that the respondent-Selecting Authority ought to have prepared at the first instance merit list of candidates who are aged between 29 and 40 years and thereafter, if the post remains unfilled, second list of candidates aged between 18 and 29 years ought to have been prepared. If the respondent-Selecting Authority had followed Rule 6 of 2001 Rules, learned counsel would submit that the petitioner would have been selected and appointed to the post of Dalayat under backlog Scheduled Caste category.

¶29

Learned counsel further submits that the select list is

¶30

opposed to Karnataka Civil Services (Procedure for Selection of Candidates during Recruitment) Act, 2018 (for short “2018 Act”). It is his contention that lesser meritorious candidates are selected under general merit. Further, it is submitted that in that regard, this Court has already accepted the said contention and directed the

¶31

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5483 WP No. 20083 of 2023

¶32

respondent-Selecting Authority to prepare the select list in accordance with the provision of 2018 Act and he prays for similar order.

¶33

Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General Sri.Reuben Jacob for respondents submits that 2001 Rules would have no application to the present recruitment. He invites attention of this Court to recruitment notification at Annexure-B dated 26.04.2022 and submits that recruitment is not in terms of 2001 Rules. Moreover, he points out Rule 1(3) of 2001 Rules and submits that it would apply only to those vacancies which were in existence as on the date of coming into force of 2001 Rules i.e., unfilled vacancies of backlog posts existed as on the date of commencement of 2001 Rules. Learned AAG produces original file relating to 2001 Rules and submits that intention of the Government was to clear the backlog vacancies existed as on the date of coming into force of 2001 Rules and only to clear backlog vacancies as on that date, special rules were made. Thus, learned AAG pray for

¶34

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5483 WP No. 20083 of 2023

¶35

dismissal of the writ petition insofar as petitioner’s claim to backlog vacancy is concerned.

¶36

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, the following questions would arise for consideration:

¶37

(i) Whether 2001 Rules would have application to the recruitment notification at

¶38

Annexure-B dated 26.04.2022?

¶39

(ii) Whether the petitioner would be entitled for any relief?

¶40

Point No.1 is answered in the negative and point No.2 is answered partly in the affirmative for the following reasons:

¶41

Notification dated 26.04.2022 at Annexure-B was issued inviting applications from eligible candidates to fill up various posts in the respondent-Secretariat including that off Dalayats. Out of 26 posts of Dalayat, 3 posts are backlog posts. Out of 3 posts, one was reserved for Scheduled Caste category and 2 posts belong to other

¶42

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:5483 WP No. 20083 of 2023

¶43

backward classes. The petitioner claims that under one Scheduled Caste backlog post, he ought to have been considered by referring Rule 6 of 2001 Rules. The only question that is required to be considered is as to whether 2001 Rules would have application to the recruitment initiated under Notification dated 26.04.2022. For that purpose, it would be helpful to note Rule 1(3) of 2001 Rules, which reads as follows:

¶44

1(3) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the rules of recruitment specially made in respect of any service or post or any other rules made or deemed to have been made under the Karnataka State Civil Services Act, 1978 (Karnataka Act, 14 of 1990), the provisions of these rules shall apply for the purpose of filling up the unfilled vacancies existing on the date of commencement of these rules .

¶45

(Emphasis supplied)

¶46

A reading of the above underlined portion would abundantly makes it clear that 2001 Rules is introduced only to fill up unfilled vacancies existed as on the date of

¶47

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:5483 WP No. 20083 of 2023

¶48

commencement of Rules. Learned AAG had placed the original file relating to 2001 Rules before the Court. The proceedings of Cabinet Sub-Committee under the Chairmanship of Minister for Forests held on 9^th October 2001 records that provisions under 2001 Rules made for the purpose of clearing backlog vacancies existed as on 1^st June 2001. In that circumstance, Rule 1(3) was inserted and procedure under Rule 6 was directed to be followed to fill up those vacancies of backlog existed as on the date of commencement of 2001 Rules. Moreover, recruitment notification dated 26.04.2022 would not indicate application of 2001 Rules. The petitioner has also failed to demonstrate that the backlog vacancy of Scheduled Caste category which is notified under notification dated 26.04.2022 was the vacancy which was existed as on the date of commencement of 2001 Rules. Apparently, one backlog vacancy of Scheduled Caste was subsequent vacancy and as such, 2001 Rules would have no application to the present recruitment notification.

¶49

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:5483 WP No. 20083 of 2023

¶51

Insofar as the other contention that lesser

¶52

meritorious candidates than the petitioner are selected under general merit category is concerned, this Court has already taken a view in W.P.No.No.14388/2022 and connected matters disposed of 30.01.2025 directing the preparation of fresh selection list by following the provisions of 2018 Act. In terms of that order, if the petitioner falls within the zone of consideration, his case shall be considered.

¶53

With the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶54

Sd/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

¶55

MPK CT:bms

Sri Mahesha C K v. Karnataka Legislative Assembly Secretariat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Mahesha C K v. Karnataka Legislative Assembly Secretariat

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

M/S Nakoda Auto Distributors, Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax

Ooredoo Q P S C Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

M/S. Khan Enterprises Vs the Assistant Commissoner of Commercial Taxes

Sri Boresha B Vs Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board

Sri P Sudarshan Vs the Commissioner

Smt N Manjula Bai Vs the State of Karnataka