Ramesh B Vs the State of Karnataka

(BY SRI. JAYALINGAYYA MUDENOORMATH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4; VIDE ORDER DATED 04.09.2019, NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.5 IS NOT ORDERED FOR PRESENT)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 15.02.2018 PASSED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT IN CASE NO.H.O.A.CR/94/2017-18 APPOINTING THE 5^th RESPONDENT TO THE POST OF VILLAGE ASSISTANT TO THE SEETHI REVENUE CIRCLE, VEMAGAL HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT WHICH IS MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The petitioner has challenged an order dated 15.02.2018 passed by the respondent No.2 in case No.H.O.A/CR/94/201718 appointing the respondent No.5 to the post of Village Assistant of Seethi Revenue Circle, Vemagal Hobli, Kolar Taluk.

¶26

The petitioner contends that he is a permanent resident of Seethi Hosur village, Vemagal hobli, Kolar Taluk and belongs to Nayaka caste which is a notified scheduled tribe. He

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10222 WP No. 7345 of 2019

¶28

contends that he completed his SSLC and belongs to Talari Inamdar family which was traditionally doing revenue collection in Seethi Hosur village. He contends that he came to know about the vacancy in the post of village assistant in Seethi Revenue Circle and since he was eligible, he applied for the said post. The respondent No.2 called for a report from the respondent No.3, who inturn sought for a report from respondent No.4. The respondent No.4 forwarded a report to the respondent No.3 on 13.09.2017, in terms of which, he had indicated that both the petitioner and the respondent No.5 were not the residents of Seethi Hosur village. The petitioner had passed his SSLC examination, while the respondent No.5 has completed her 2^nd PUC. He also reported that the petitioner was employed in a private company in Bengaluru. He also reported that the petitioner belonged to Talari Inamthi family and the respondent No.5 had four years experience as a Gram Sahayak. The petitioner contends that on the basis of the report, the respondent No.2 issued the impugned order appointing the respondent No.5 as a village assistant on compassionate grounds. He alleged that this appointment is in the violation of the Government circular bearing No.RD/72/MVS

¶29

4 -

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:10222 WP No. 7345 of 2019

¶31

93 dated 30.12.1993. He contends that the respondent No.5 is married and is residing at Bettalahalli, Chintamani taluk and therefore, the appointment was a clear violation of the Government order bearing No.RD3 MVS 77 Benglauru, dated 16.09.1978. The petitioner is therefore before this Court challenging the appointment of respondent No.5.

¶32

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent No.5 is not entitled to be appointed on compassionate grounds as per the circular bearing No.RD/72/MVS 93 dated 30.12.1993. He contends that the respondent No.5 is not a resident of Seethi village, but she is a resident of Bettalahalli village and therefore, the respondent No.5 is not residing in the same revenue circle and is not acquainted with the residents of the village. He contended that the impugned order appointing the respondent No.5 as village assistant is in violation of the Government order bearing No.RD3 MVS 77 Bangalore dated 16.09.1978. He also contends that the report of the respondent No.4 was factually incorrect and the respondent No.2 mechanically accepted the report without calling upon the petitioner to explain whether he was a resident of Seethi village or a resident of Bengaluru. He

¶33

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10222 WP No. 7345 of 2019

¶34

therefore, contends that the petitioner was more eligible than the respondent No.5 for being appointed as a Gram Sahayak.

¶35

Notice to respondent No.5 is not ordered. Be that as it may, the notification issued by the respondent No.2 dated 15.02.2018 inviting applications to the post of gram sahayak shows that the appointment was temporary in nature and was available until the age of 65 years. The only requirement which is evident from the circular bearing No.RD MVS 77 dated 16.09.1978 is that the applicant should belong to an erstwhile family of the village officers which was abolished under the Karnataka Village Officer's Abolition Act, 1961. In the case on hand, the respondent No.5 was admittedly a member of a family of village officers which stood abolished and she had also worked earlier as a gram sahayak for four years and her qualification was better than the qualification possessed by the petitioner. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner that the respondent No.5 was a resident of Bettalahalli village, Chintamani taluk and that she was not a resident of Seethi village is not a disqualification for the respondent No.5 to be appointed to the said post.

¶36

6 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:10222 WP No. 7345 of 2019

¶38

In that view of the matter, there is no error committed by the respondent No.2 in appointing the respondent No.5 warranting interference. Hence, the petition is

¶39

dismissed.

¶40

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶41

HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42

Ramesh B v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh B v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.R.S.Gururaja Vs the Managing Director

Sri Abhinand Vs the Bangalore Medical College and Research Institute

Sri Rangaraju Vs State of Karnataka

Lt.Col. T Thirupathi (Retd) Vs the Union of India

Smt. B. Vijayalakshmi Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Rathnamma Vs the State of Karnataka