Dismissed¶87

Appashi Dharmanna Gurav v. Deputy Inspector General of Police

Karnataka HC7 Nov 2025WP/27834/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Ex-serviceman reservation; ex-CRPF candidate; Constable recruitment Notification May 2021; Rule 9 Karnataka Civil Service [General Recruitment] Rules 1977; Government Order dated 04.11.2022 Ex-CAPF personnel; KSAT Application No.3587/2022 order dated 11.01.2023; Endorsements dated 14.07.2022 and 19.07.2023; W.P. No.7027/2021; Civil Contempt Petition No.777/2022; writ petition rejected.

What did the court decide?

None; the petition stands rejected and all pending applications stand disposed of. ¶87

Appashi Dharmanna Gurav Vs Deputy Inspector… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the petition stands rejected and all pending applications stand disposed of.

¶87

Issue for consideration

Whether this Court must intervene either with the Tribunal's order dated 11.01.2023 or with the second respondent's Endorsement dated 19.07.2023. +2 more

¶55

Court's answer

No exception can be taken to the Tribunal's order or to the second respondent's Endorsement dated 19.07.2023.

¶81

Ratio / Principle

The Government Order dated 04.11.2022 only directs the consideration of extending facilities to Ex-servicemen from the Central Armed Police Forces, including from the CRPF, on the model of the Central Government and in consultation with them.

¶77

Key takeaways

Since the Government Order dated 04.11.2022 has not resulted in any amendment of the 1977 Rules, the Tribunal was justified in opining that the petitioner cannot rely upon it.ratio¶81
The Rules as prevailing on the date of the Notification calling for applications are determinative.ratio¶81
The petitioner did not call in question the exclusion of Ex-servicemen from the CRPF in the present selection process, and he participated in that selection process.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by an ex-CRPF personnel against the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal's order dated 11.01.2023 in Application No.3587/2022 and the Commissioner of Police, Mangaluru City's Endorsements dated 14.07.2022 and 19.07.2023 refusing him appointment as Constable in the May 2021 recruitment. The Notification confined the Ex-serviceman category to those who served with the Defence Force, excluding CRPF and other forces. The Government Order dated 04.11.2022 declaring retired Central Armed Police Force personnel as Ex-CAPF personnel only directed consideration of facilities on the model of the Central Government and did not result in any amendment of the Karnataka Civil Service [General Recruitment] Rules, 1977; the Rules prevailing on the date of the Notification calling for applications are determinative. Having participated in the selection without challenging the exclusionary stipulation, the petitioner could not seek appointment in the present recruitment. Petition rejected; pending applications disposed of.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:45245-DB WP No. 27834 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO. 27834 OF 2023 (S-KSAT)

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

Digitally Signed by REKHA R Location : High Court of Karnataka

¶13

APPASHI DHARMANNA GURAV S/O DHARMANNA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS C/O NO 7/201 BIDARAGERE ROAD BHANGIRAMAIAH LAYOUT NEAR LAKSHMI TALKIES ANEKAL BENGALURU URBAN DIST 562106.

¶14

AND ALSO AT JAKANUR VILLAGE CHINAGUNDI POST JAMAKHANDI TQ BAGALKOT DIT 587301.

¶15

(BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR K.,ADVOCATE)

¶16

…PETITIONER

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:45245-DB WP No. 27834 of 2023

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

AND:

¶21

DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE RECRUITMENT AND TRIANING AND POLICE CONSTABLE APPOINTMENT COMMITTEE CARLTON BHAVANA PALACE ROAD BENGALURU 560001.

¶22

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE MANGALURU CITY MANGALURU.

¶23

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU 01.

¶24

GOVERNEMNT OF INDIA MINITRY OF HOME AFFAIRS (POLICE DIVISION II) RESETTLEMENT AND WELFARE DIRECTORATE NDCC II BUILDING 3^RD FLOOR JAI SINGH ROAD NEW DELHI 01.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI.V. SHIVA REDDY., AGA FOR R1 TO R3;

¶27

SRI. JAGADISH G KUMBAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶28

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:45245-DB WP No. 27834 of 2023

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 11.01.2023 BEING PASSED IN APPLICATION No. 3587/2022 ON THE FILE OF KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, AT BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE -A; b) AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 14.07.2022 BEING PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT No. 2 VIDE ORDER No. SIBBANDI 2/27/COP/2021-22 VIDE ANNEXURE-A8.

¶32

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS

¶33

DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶34

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

¶35

ORAL ORDER

¶36

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD)

¶37

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 11.01.2023 in Application No.3587/2022 on the file of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru [for short, 'the Tribunal' ]. The Tribunal, by its impugned order dated 11.01.2023, has disposed

¶38

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:45245-DB WP No. 27834 of 2023

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

of the petitioner's application directing the

¶42

respondents to consider his representation dated 30.11.2022 and to take a decision on the petitioner's representation within four months. After the Tribunal's order, the second respondent has issued the Endorsement dated 19.07.2023 informing the petitioner that he cannot be extended the benefit of the subsequent Government Order dated 04.11.2022 because the Notification inviting applications for selection to the posts of ' Constable' is prior to this order.

¶43

The undisputed position is that in terms of Rule 9 of the Karnataka Civil Service [General Recruitment] Rules, 1977 [for short, '1977 Rules' ], an Ex-serviceman as contemplated therein would be entitled for reservation in matters of recruitment with the State Government. The Tribunal, referring to this Rule, which remains unchanged even today, has opined that the petitioner who has retired from

¶44

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:45245-DB WP No. 27834 of 2023

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

service with the Central Reserve Police Force would

¶48

not qualify for reservation under that category. The petitioner is aggrieved by this observation and by the Endorsement issued by the second respondent on 19.07.2023.

¶49

The first respondent has issued

¶50

Notification in May 2021 inviting applications to fill up posts of Constables stipulating that only those Exservicemen who have served with Defence Force would come under this category and those who have rendered services with Defense Security Cops or General Reserve Engineering Force or Para-Military Force would not. The petitioner, without calling in question this stipulation or the Rules that enable the stipulation, has participated in the selection process. The petitioner is part of the provisional selection list published on 01.02.2022 and he has also undergone medical test. The appointment orders have been issued to those selected on 26.04.2022, but not to

¶51

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC:45245-DB WP No. 27834 of 2023

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

the petitioner and he is issued with the Endorsement dated 14.07.2022 informing him that his candidature as an Ex-serviceman cannot be accepted. The petitioner has challenged this Endorsement.

¶55

Sri Vijaya Kumar K, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Jagadish G Kumbar, the learned counsel for the fourth respondent, and Sri V Shivareddy, the learned Additional Government Advocate, for the other respondents, are heard on whether this Court must intervene either with the Tribunal's order or with the second respondent's Endorsement dated 19.07.2023. This question is examined in the light of the following proceedings.

¶56

[a] The petitioner, joined by others, has filed applications with the Tribunal in

¶57

Nos.1303/2020 and 1304/2020 calling in question the decision of the Karnataka Public Service Commission [KPSC] not to

¶58

¶59

NC: 2025:KHC:45245-DB WP No. 27834 of 2023

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

treat him and other similarly placed as 'Exservicemen' .

¶62

[b] The Tribunal, by its order dated 26.02.2021, has rejected the application in the light of the definition of an ' Exserviceman ' in the 1977 Rules.

¶63

[c] The petitioner has carried this order in challenge before this Court in the writ petition in W.P. No.7027/2021. This Court, on 21.06.2021 has called upon the State Government to take a decision in view of the Official Memorandum issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs on 23.11.2012 to treat even Ex-Central Reserve Police Force Personnel as Ex-servicemen and to extend all benefits as extended to ‘ Ex-serviceman’ for the Defense Force.

¶64

¶65

NC: 2025:KHC:45245-DB WP No. 27834 of 2023

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

[d] On 17.08.2021, this Court observing that no action is taken despite specific directions has directed the Registry of this Court to draw contempt proceedings for failure to comply with the aforesaid directions, and such contempt proceedings are also drawn in Civil Contempt Petition No.777/2022.

¶68

[e] However, with a copy of the Government Order dated 04.11.2022 being placed on record, the contempt proceedings are dropped by order dated 10.11.2022 observing that suo motu proceedings will not survive for consideration.

¶69

Sri Vijaya Kumar K proposes to rely upon

¶70

these circumstances to contend that there must be an intervention directing the second respondent to issue orders for his appointment as a 'Constable'

¶71

¶72

NC: 2025:KHC:45245-DB WP No. 27834 of 2023

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

based on the selection process as aforesaid. The Government order dated 04.11.2022 reads thus:

¶75

"In view of the points explained in the proposal, retired Central Armed Police Force personnel from Central Reserve [CRPF], Border Security Force [BSF], Central Industrial Security Force [CISF], Indo Tibetan Border Police [ITBP] and Sashastra Seema Bal [SSB] are declared as Ex-Central Armed Police Force personnel in the State of Karnataka and ordered to consider the facilities provided to the Ex-Central Armed Police Force Personnel on the model of the Central Government and in consultation with them."

¶76

This Court must observe that this

¶77

Government Order only directs the consideration of extending facilities to Ex-servicemen from Central Armed Police Forces including from CRPF on the model of the Central Government and in consultation with them. This order has not resulted in any further

¶78

10 -

¶79

NC: 2025:KHC:45245-DB WP No. 27834 of 2023

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

action for the amendment of the 1977 Rules. Therefore, the Tribunal is justified in opining that the petitioner cannot rely upon this Government order dated 04.11.2022 as it has not resulted in any amendment, and this Court must also observe that if this Government Order has not resulted in any amendment, no exception can be taken to the Tribunal's order or with the Endorsement dated 19.07.2023 especially when the petitioner cannot dispute that the Rules as of the date of the Notification calling for applications would be determinative.

¶82

Further, the petitioner has called in

¶83

question the Government Order dated 04.11.2022 but he has not called in question the exclusion of ' Exservicemen' from CRPF in the present selection process, and he has participated in the selection process. This Court is of the view that if there is to be any direction in favour of the petitioner for the

¶84

11 -

¶85

NC: 2025:KHC:45245-DB WP No. 27834 of 2023

¶86

HC-KAR

¶87

present recruitment proceedings, he could not have waited on the outcome of earlier proceedings and should have taken measures to protect his interest with the Selection Notification limiting the benefit of reservation to 'Ex-servicemen' from amongst only those who have rendered services with the Defense Force. As such, the petition stands rejected, and consequently, all pending applications stand

¶88

disposed of.

¶89

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶90

Sd/(T.M. NADAF) JUDGE

¶91

AN/-

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 11.01.2023 in Application No.3587/2022 disposing of the petitioner's application by directing the respondents to consider his representation dated 30.11.2022 and take a decision within four months.¶37
Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru · 11.01.2023
Prior proceeding
The petitioner, joined by others, filed applications Nos.1303/2020 and 1304/2020 before the Tribunal calling in question the Karnataka Public Service Commission's decision not to treat him and similarly placed persons as Ex-servicemen.¶57
Prior proceeding
By order dated 26.02.2021 the Tribunal rejected the application in the light of the definition of 'Exserviceman' in the 1977 Rules.¶62
Prior proceeding
The petitioner carried the Tribunal's order in challenge before this Court in W.P. No.7027/2021.¶63
Prior proceeding
On 21.06.2021 this Court called upon the State Government to take a decision in view of the Official Memorandum issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs on 23.11.2012 to treat even Ex-Central Reserve Police Force personnel as Ex-servicemen and to extend all benefits as extended to Ex-servicemen of the Defence Force.¶63
Prior proceeding
On 17.08.2021, observing that no action had been taken despite specific directions, this Court directed its Registry to draw contempt proceedings; such proceedings were drawn in Civil Contempt Petition No.777/2022.¶67
Prior proceeding
The Government Order dated 04.11.2022 declared retired Central Armed Police Force personnel (CRPF, BSF, CISF, ITBP and SSB) as Ex-Central Armed Police Force personnel in the State of Karnataka and ordered consideration of facilities on the model of the Central Government and in consultation with it.¶75
Prior proceeding
With the Government Order dated 04.11.2022 placed on record, the contempt proceedings were dropped by order dated 10.11.2022.¶68
Prior proceeding
The first respondent issued a Notification in May 2021 inviting applications to fill up Constable posts, stipulating that only Ex-servicemen who served with the Defence Force qualify and excluding those who served with the Defence Security Corps, General Reserve Engineering Force or Para-Military Force.¶50
Prior proceeding
The petitioner was part of the provisional selection list published on 01.02.2022 and underwent the medical test.¶50
Prior proceeding
Appointment orders were issued to selected candidates on 26.04.2022, but not to the petitioner.¶50
Prior proceeding
The second respondent issued the Endorsement dated 14.07.2022 (vide Order No. SIBBANDI 2/27/COP/2021-22, Annexure-A8) informing the petitioner that his candidature as an Ex-serviceman could not be accepted; the petitioner challenged this Endorsement.¶54
Prior proceeding
After the Tribunal's order, the second respondent issued the Endorsement dated 19.07.2023 stating that the petitioner could not be extended the benefit of the Government Order dated 04.11.2022 because the Notification inviting applications preceded it.¶42

Appashi Dharmanna Gurav v. Deputy Inspector General of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Appashi Dharmanna Gurav v. Deputy Inspector General of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Penchalaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

The Lokayukta Vs Sri Ramakanth R Kunte

Union of India Vs Atashi Mukherjee

Manager Vs Smt N R Rekha

The State of Karnataka Vs M Shashidhar

Karnataka Lokayukta Vs State of Karnataka