Sri Anand Kumar M Vs the Commissioner

SRI ANAND KUMAR M S/O LATE SRI MOKA REDDY AGED 35 YEARS R/O NO.42/2, SUJATHA NILAYA SRI MARIYAMMA TEMPLE ROAD KADUGODI COLONY, DINNUR KADUGODI POST, BANGALORE-560067

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. VIKRAM M BHAT, FOR SMT. VAISHALI HEGDE., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS MALAI MAHADESHWARA VARTHA BHAVAN TIPPU SULTAN PALACE ROAD CHAMARAJAPET, BANGALORE-560018.

¶15

EXECUTIVE OFFICER SRI ANJANERASWAMY TEMPLE DODDA BANASAVADI BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE-560043.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. SIDHARTH BABU RAO, AGA FOR R1 AND R2)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT NO:ADM 1/CR/176/2019-20

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:35194 WP No. 3276 of 2022

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

DATED: 09.07.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-A ISSUED BY R-1 AND ETC.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the endorsement dated 09.07.2021 vide Annexure-A, issued by the first respondent – Commissioner, wherein the selection process pursuant to the notification vide Annexure-E has been cancelled.

¶26

The brief facts of the case are that, the first respondent issued a notification calling applications from the eligible candidates to the post of Watchman. Pursuant to the notification vide Annexure-E, the petitioner had applied for the post of watchman along with other persons. The petitioner’s name has been recommended for appointment as Watchman by the Executive Officer of the temple i.e. the second respondent. The same has been

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:35194 WP No. 3276 of 2022

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

forwarded by the Additional Deputy Commissioner to the Commissioner. The Commissioner, by the impugned order vide Annexure-A has cancelled the recruitment process. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶30

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised the following contentions:

¶31

(i) Firstly, the petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Caste Community. As per Rule 12(6) of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Rules, 2002 (for short, ‘2002 Rules’), once the proposal has been sent to the Commissioner, the Commissioner, after examining the selection list has to either approve, modify or reject the selection list. For rejection, he has to give a reason. Without giving any reason, the impugned endorsement has been issued.

¶32

(ii) Secondly, by the time a fresh notification is issued, the petitioner will be age barred. Because of the

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:35194 WP No. 3276 of 2022

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

fault of the respondents, she cannot be denied the opportunity to file an application since she is already working as a typist on contract basis in the same institution. Therefore, he sought for allowing the petition.

¶36

Per contra, the learned AGA for the State raised the following contentions:

¶37

(i) Firstly, the impugned endorsement has been issued with a reason. Even though there are 3 posts, no roster has been fixed. Therefore, the first respondent, by exercising the power under Rule 12(6) of 2002 Rules has rightly passed the impugned endorsement.

¶38

(ii) Secondly, as per Rule 6A of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 (for short, ‘General Recruitment Rules’), the age limit for scheduled caste persons to apply for the post is 40 years. The petitioner is still aged about 38 years. If fresh notification is issued, he can also apply if he satisfies all other conditions. Hence, he sought to dismiss the writ petition.

¶39

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:35194 WP No. 3276 of 2022

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and

¶42

perused the petition papers.

¶43

By Annexure E dated 18.10.2019, the second respondent has issued a notification, calling applications for filling up posts of three watchman to the second respondent - Temple. The petitioner is one of the applicants. After verifying the records, petitioner’s name has been recommended by the second respondent – Assistant Commissioner. In turn, the Assistant Commissioner has recommended the name of the petitioner along with others to the Commissioner vide Annexure-L dated 04.01.2020. The First respondent – Commissioner by exercising the power under 12(6) of 2002 Rules, rejected the selection list on the ground that, before issuing the notification, the reservation policy has not been followed and no post has been reserved. Under Rule 12(6) of 2002 Rules, the Commissioner can reject the select list after giving a valid reason. In the case in hand, the Commissioner has given a reason for rejection of the

¶44

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:35194 WP No. 3276 of 2022

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

list that no reservation policy has been followed for recruitment of three watchmen to the second respondent Temple. There is no error or illegality in the impugned endorsement issued by the first respondent.

¶47

In view of the above, the writ petition is devoid of

¶48

merit and accordingly, it is dismissed.

¶49

The petitioner has an apprehension that, now he is aged about 38 years, he cannot be eligible to apply for the post, if fresh notification is issued.

¶50

The learned Additional Advocate has pointed out that, since the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste category and the age limit for Scheduled Caste candidate is 40 years under the General Recruitment Rules, there is

¶51

no bar for him to apply, if a fresh notification is issued.

¶52