The State of Karnataka Vs Sri Giriraja

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:14734-DB WP No. 20251 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 20251 OF 2021 (S-KSAT)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PORTS AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001

¶11

THE CHAIRMAN DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PORTS AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT K.R.CIRCLE BENGALURU-560 001

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. B.J. ESWARAPPA, AGA)

¶14

Digitally signed by SHAKAMBARI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

AND:

¶16

SRI. GIRIRAJA S/O M.S. THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT MANCHANAHALLI VILLAGE BILLINAKOTE POST NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 111

¶17

SRI. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT DIDAGA VILLAGE POST HIRISAVE HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN-573 144

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14734-DB WP No. 20251 of 2021

¶19

SRI. MANOJKUMAR V AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT HEDAKALE VILLAGE AND POST NANJANGUD TALUK, MYSORE-572 312

¶20

SRI. ANJANEYA NAYAK S S/O SOMAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NAYAKARA BEEDHI YAVANAGE, CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE-577 544

¶21

SRI. DEVENDRA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO.5878, 24^TH MAIN VIJAYANAGAR 2^ND STAGE MYSORE-575 017

¶22

SRI. YERAKADA GOPALAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT 4^TH WARD NAGAR RAILWAY GATE MARIYAMMANAHALLI POST HOSPET TALUK BELLARY DISTRICT-583 322

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. MAHESH L, ADVOCATE FOR R1; VIDE ORDER DATED 27.09.2024 R-4 & R-6 ARE ABATED; R-3 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 03.02.2021 (ANNEXURE-C) PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NO. 11184/2016.

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT and

¶28

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14734-DB WP No. 20251 of 2021

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT)

¶32

Petitioner-State accompanied by Chairman of Inland

¶33

Water Transport Department are knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the State Administrative Tribunal’s order dated 03.02.2021 whereby 1^st Respondent’s Application No.11184/2016 having been favoured, they ‘ are directed to appoint the applicant on the basis of the provisional list from the date candidates in the said list were appointed and to grant consequential benefits. He would be entitled for pay from the date he reports for duty…’

¶34

A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated

¶35

17.01.2022 had said as under:

¶36

“Appointment of the applicant/respondent shall b subject to the outcome of the writ petition subject to the petitioners issuing appointment orders within a period of eight weeks, if not already issued”.

¶37

Learned counsel appearing for the contesting Respondent

¶38

submits that his client having been duly appointed to the

¶39

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14734-DB WP No. 20251 of 2021

¶40

post in question vide order dated 23.02.2024, has been discharging his duties with no complaint whatsoever and therefore petition has become infructuous. Learned AGA appearing for the Petitioners agrees with the same and accordingly on the instructions of jurisdictional official has filed an ill-drafted memo dated 07.04.2024 which reads as under:

¶41

“In the above matter, it is submitted that on the standing instruction of S.V.Srinivas who is working as F.D.A in the Chief Engineer Office. The above said writ petition does not survive on the grounds that Giriraja, who was appointed in view of the interim order of this Hon’ble Court on 23-02-2024. Therefore it may be taken on record in the interest of justice and equity.” (sic)

¶42

Even otherwise, we notice that there are too many vacancies and that petitioner’s position is from the additional selection list. Therefore, counsel for the private respondent is right in telling us that the order of Tribunal is not vulnerable for challenge.

¶43

In the above circumstances petition is disposed off as having become infructuous and as a corollary of that the

¶44