Shekharappa v Vs State of Karnataka

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:41978-DB WP No. 21905 of 2023

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO.21905 OF 2023 (S-KSAT)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SHEKHARAPPA V S/O RENUKAMMA V, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O HANASI VILLAGE, HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT – 583 135

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. GOWTHAMDEV C. ULLAL., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally Signed by REKHA R Location : High Court of Karnataka

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ROOM NO.204 & 205, 2^ND FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶16

THE DIRECTOR OF MINORITIES V. V. TOWERS, 20^TH & 23^RD FLOOR, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶17

THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, UDYOG SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:41978-DB WP No. 21905 of 2023

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

SRI. NILAVANJI NAGARAJ S/O NILAVANJI MUGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O 7^TH WARD, KURUBARA ONI, UJJINI, KUDLIGI TALUK, BALLARY DISTRICT – 583 136

¶21

SRI. BASAVARAJ S/O GUDNEPPA BHEEMANUR, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O KUKANAPALI TALUK & DIST. KOPPAL – 583 229

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA., AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. K.M.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI. VIJAYA SIMHA REDDY D.V, ADVOCATE FOR C/R4 & R5)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION/SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE HON’BLE KSAT DATED 16.8.2023 MADE IN A. No.5102/2021 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C AS THE SAME IS ERRONEOUS AND ETC.,

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:41978-DB WP No. 21905 of 2023

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF)

¶31

This petition under Articles 226 and 227 is by the applicant/petitioner, calling in question the order dated 16.08.2023 in application No.5102/2021 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (‘Tribunal’ for short), dismissing the application, holding that the applicant is not a Government Servant and that the recruitment was not to a civil post or civil service of the State, as such, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the application.

¶32

The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal.

¶33

The brief outline of the facts leading to the filing of this petition is as under:

¶34

In response to the recruitment notification

¶35

dated 25.11.2017 issued by the respondent inviting

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:41978-DB WP No. 21905 of 2023

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

applications from eligible candidates for recruitment to various posts, including the posts of language teachers in Hindi (NON-Technical Post mean Graduate Post) in Morarji Desai Residential Schools under the Directorate of Minority Welfare for High Schools, the applicant applied for the post of Hindi Language Teacher in MDRS, claiming reservation under 3B/RL/KMS/HK. The applicant has written the examination scheduled by the 3^rd respondent.

¶39

On 29.10.2018, the 3^rd respondent published the key answers in respect of the General Knowledge Paper-I and Communication Paper-II of the Non-Tech Group ‘C’ (Degree Standard) examination on its website. The petitioner had scored 30.7500 marks in Paper-I and 31.7500 in Paper-II. The 3^rd respondent issued an intimation calling upon the petitioner to appear before it on 11.06.2020. The applicant was informed that he was provisionally eligible for the post and was directed to

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:41978-DB WP No. 21905 of 2023

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

submit all the required documents in two sets, duly attested by a Gezetted Officer.

¶43

On publication of provisional list, the

¶44

name of the petitioner was not found. However, the names of respondent Nos.4 and 5, who were less meritorious than the applicant, were found.

¶45

The applicant filed his objections to the provisional list. Upon receipt of objections, the respondent No.3 issued an endorsement dated 11.02.2022 (Annexure A35), stating that he does not fit in the eligibility criteria, as such his candidature is rejected.

¶46

Aggrieved by the endorsement rejecting

¶47

his candidature, the applicant was before the Tribunal in application No.5102/2021, calling in question the endorsement issued stated supra.

¶48

During the pendency of the application,

¶49

the 3^rd respondent issued final list dated 01.01.2022.

¶50

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:41978-DB WP No. 21905 of 2023

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

Subsequently, the applicant added a paragraph in prayer seeking to quash the final list dated 01.01.2022, vide Annexure-A40.

¶53

Upon acceptance of notice, the 3^rd respondent raised the issue of

¶54

maintainability/jurisdiction of the KSAT, contending that the recruitment was not to civil posts or civil services of the State and therefore, the recruitees were not Government Servants. Hence, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear and dispose of the matter.

¶55

Upon hearing both parties, the Tribunal, considering the judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in application No.9160/2018 dated 28.02.2019, in the case of Imran and

¶56

Bankapur Vs. KPSC and Director, Minority

¶57

Welfare Department, held that the recruitment was not for civil posts or civil services and held that the Tribunal lacks of jurisdiction to consider the case, and dismissed the application for want of

¶58

7 -

¶59

NC: 2025:KHC:41978-DB WP No. 21905 of 2023

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

jurisdiction. It is this order passed by the Tribunal is called in question in this writ petition.

¶62

Heard Sri.Gowthamdev C. Ullal, learned

¶63

counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Vikas Rojipura, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri.K.M.Prakash, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and Sri.Vijaya Simha Reddy D.V., learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5.

¶64

Sri.Gowthamdev C. Ullal, has raised several grounds in the petition. Among them, the rejection of the application on the ground of jurisdiction was pressed as the preliminary ground.

¶65

Learned counsel filed an affidavit dated 23.08.2024 along with certain annexures, among them Annexure-D, the notification issued by the Department of Minority Welfare Secretariat dated 15.03.2011, enacting the rules called the Karnataka Minorities Welfare Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2010, to contended that there are two groups

¶66

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:41978-DB WP No. 21905 of 2023

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

of schools with identical names, one group of school is under the Department of Minority Welfare, (which is established by the Government and under the Government control), and the other set of schools is managed by a society called the Karnataka Residential Education Institution Society (KREIS). The teachers and principals working in the schools managed by KREIS are not Government Servants but they are employees of the society. Whereas, the school i.e., Morarji Desai Residential Schools under the Department of Minority Welfare Secretariat are established and managed by the Government and under its control.

¶69

The principal of Morarji Desai Residential

¶70

School is appointed under the rules stated supra. As such, this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the Tribunal. In these circumstances, the Tribunal has got all jurisdiction to consider the case of the applicant on merits. Since the application was not considered on merits and was rejected only

¶71

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:41978-DB WP No. 21905 of 2023

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

on the ground of jurisdiction, the matter requires reconsideration by the Tribunal on merits and sought to allow the application, setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal and remand the matter for reconsideration on merits of the application.

¶74

Sri.Vikas Rojipura, learned counsel and Sri.K.N.Prakash, learned counsel though argued against the contentions of the Sri.Gouthamdev C. Ullal, however, not in a position to defer with the notification produced at Annexure-D along with affidavits stated supra, which shows that the school on behalf of which recruitment proceedings were initiated at the request of the Minority Welfare Secretariat, is established by the Government and is under the control of Government. As such, those are civil posts and the person to be appointed would become a civil servant/permanent servant.

¶75

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:41978-DB WP No. 21905 of 2023

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

In these circumstances, the Tribunal has

¶78

got all jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the application on merits.

¶79

Since, the applicant succeeds on the preliminary ground of jurisdiction, deliberation on other grounds are unwarranted.

¶80

A perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal clearly suggests that the matter was not heard on merits but it is only on the point of jurisdiction. We are of the opinion that, in view of Annexure-D, the recruitment is for civil posts/civil services of the State. As such, the Tribunal has got all jurisdiction to decide the application on merits.

¶81