Shivamadaiah M Vs the Director General

SHIVAMADAIAH M S/O MADAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS OCC: POLICE SUB INSPECTOR (CIVIL) PRESENTLY WORKING AT CHESCOM, MYSORE MYSORE – 571 124 R/AT NO.32, PRAKRUTI BADAVANE T.NARASIPURA ROAD MYSORE – 571 124

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI. NATARAJ G., ADVOCATE)

¶14

Digitally signed by MADHUSHREE H Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL & INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE KARNATAKA STATE IGP (HEAD OFFICE) NO.2, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001

¶17

THE SECRETARY & DEPUTY INSEPCTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (TRAINING) AND MEMBER SECRETARY PSI’s CIVIL RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE O/O THE ADDITONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:39606-DB WP No. 7885 of 2024

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

(RECRUITMENT AND CHAIRMAN) PSI’s RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE CID, CARLTON HOUSE PALACE ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001

¶21

J. D. NARASIMHA RAJU S/O DODDANARASAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS SUB INSEPCTOR (CIVIL) CHEST NO.210, 7^TH PLOTAN PTS NAGANAHALLI KALBURGI – 585 102 PRESENTLY WORKING AT KULAGODA POLICE STATION BELGAVI DIST BELAGAVI – 577 428

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1 & R2)

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ORDER BEING PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.2820/2021 ON THE FILE OF KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, AT BENGALURU DATED 08/08/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION NO.2820/2021 AND THE RELIEFS BEING SOUGHT THEREIN IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶25

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING 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 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:39606-DB WP No. 7885 of 2024

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

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

¶32

This petition under Articles-226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is by the unsuccessful applicant calling in question, the order dated 08.08.2023 in Application No. 2820 of 2021 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (‘Tribunal’ for short) whereby, the prayer sought to quash select list dated 15.07.2020 at Annexure-A8, passed by the second respondent and consequently to quash the order dated 31.08.2020, in rejecting the candidature of the applicant to the post of the Police Sub-Inspector (Civil) vide Annexure-A9, passed by the first respondent and also the direction sought against respondent no.2 to select the applicant to the post of Police Inspector (Civil) vide notification dated 04.09.2022, was declined, by dismissing the application.

¶33

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

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:39606-DB WP No. 7885 of 2024

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

A brief outline of facts leading to filing of the present petition are as under:

¶38

The second respondent floated a notification dated 04.09.2002 for filling up of the two posts of Police SubInspector (Civil) for in-service candidates in SC(Rural) Reservation category. Vide selection list dated 07.05.2003, the applicant with 79 marks and one Sri.Gopal Nayak with 85 marks were found eligible in the order of merit and selected as PSI under the aforesaid category.

¶39

Aggrieved by the selection list, the third respondent herein, called in question the same in Application Nos.3875/2003, for inclusion of his name in the selection list in the place of applicant. An interim order came to be passed in the said application, whereby the selection list was subject to the result of the order in the above pending application. In view of the interim order, no appointment order was issued to the applicant till 25.11.2016 i.e., the date of disposal of the application stated supra vide Annexure-A2, wherein the Tribunal allowed the

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:39606-DB WP No. 7885 of 2024

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

application in part, however, not interfered with the impugned selection list dated 07.05.2003. A direction was issued to the officials / respondents therein to verify the status of Madhugiri at relevant time and pass appropriate orders within three months.

¶43

Thereafter, the applicant approached the Tribunal in Application No.6584 of 2017 seeking a direction to the officials/respondents therein, to appoint the applicant to the post of Sub-Inspector, in pursuance of the Notification dated 04.09.2002, retrospectively and for other consequential benefits. However, the application came to be withdrawn on 05.09.2018 (Annexure-A3), in view of the writ petition filed by the third respondent, calling in question the order dated 25.11.2016.

¶44

In view of the order passed by the Tribunal in Application No. 3895/2003 an endorsement comes to be issued on 23.05.2017 by the officials/respondents against respondent no.3 herein stating that the School in which he had studied was not coming under the Rural area at the

¶45

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:39606-DB WP No. 7885 of 2024

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

relevant point of time. A Review Application was filed by respondent No.3 in R.A.No.19 of 2007 seeking to review the order dated 25.11.2016 which came to be dismissed by an order dated 19.06.2018 (Annexure-A4) stating that the applicant therein has not challenged the endorsement issued. Further, that the endorsement issued is in compliance of the order under review and since the order has already been complied, there remains nothing to review and accordingly, dismissed the review application.

¶48

The third respondent called in question the order dated 25.11.2016 in Application No. 3895 of 2003, as well as the order dated 23.05.2017 in R.A. No. 98 of 2017 before this court in Writ Petition No.32005 of 2018. Though the applicant was a party in the writ petition, the writ petition came to be dismissed against him for short of taking steps.

¶49

Thereafter the applicant was selected to the post of PSI in the subsequent selection list of 2007, when the agitation for considering his case for appointment on the basis of select list of 2002 was still pending, vide order dated

¶50

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:39606-DB WP No. 7885 of 2024

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

07.01.2019 (Annexure-A6) he was given deemed date of appointment in the PSI cadre with effect from 27.08.2003 without monetary benefits to the said retrospective appointment.

¶53

A Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.32005 of 2018, vide order dated 04.01.2020 was pleased to quash the endorsement dated 23.05.2017 and the order in RA No. 98 of 2017, dated 29.06.2018 and directed the first and second respondents in the writ petition to consider the case of the third respondent to the post of PSI under the SC (Rural) category and issue appropriate orders. Pursuant to the orders passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, the official / respondents have removed the name of the applicant from the selection list on the basis of the selection Notification of 2002 and included the name of the third respondent in the selection list dated 15.07.2020 (Annexure-A8). Accordingly, the consequential benefits of the applicant selection based on the inclusion in the select list of 2002, by order dated 07.01.2019 came to be withdrawn vide the order dated 31.08.2020 as per

¶54

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:39606-DB WP No. 7885 of 2024

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

Annexure-A9. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant was before the Tribunal in the present application i.e., Application No.2820/2021.

¶57

The main contention of the applicant before the Tribunal was that though he was a party to the Writ Petition in W.P.No.32005 of 2018, the order passed in the Writ petition by the Coordinate Bench of this High Court is not binding on him, the reason being the writ petition was dismissed against him for short of notice. Further, that the selection list of the applicant has not been disturbed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the said order. The respondent in the guise of complying the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this High Court, cannot rescind the appointment of the applicant based on the selection list of 2002 of Recruitment Notification. He has further contented that the subsequent selection of applicant in 2007 recruitment notification did not deprive the applicants of his claim for appointment to the post of PSI based on the selection list of 2002 notification.

¶58

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:39606-DB WP No. 7885 of 2024

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

The respondent – State upon notice appeared and

¶61

filed statement of objection, contending that the order impugned in the application were passed in compliance of the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.32005/2018, since the third respondent being more meritorious than the applicant in the SC (Rural) Category. It is further contented by the State that the fact that the respondent no.3 is more meritorious than the applicant in SC (Rural) reservation is not at all disputed in the application and accordingly sought to dismiss the application.

¶62

The Tribunal after hearing both the parties came to a conclusion that the third respondent is more meritorious than the applicant in SC (Rural) Category, but for the reason that the school wherein he has completed his matriculation from i.e., (8^th to 10^th ) in Madhugiri, was not coming within Rural Area, hence was denied appointment. Further, that the applicant has not disputed the merit of 3^rd report. That apart, the Tribunal has observed that the applicant in the application has sought to annul the

¶63

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:39606-DB WP No. 7885 of 2024

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

subsequent order, on the ground that he was not heard in the writ petition, the said ground cannot be considered by the Tribunal, accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the application, observing that the seniority of the applicant has been revised based on the appointment to PSI cadre on the basis of the subsequent selection list, of 2007. It is this order passed by the Tribunal is called in question in the present writ petition.

¶66

Heard Sri.Nataraj G., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Vikas Rojipura, learned AGA foe respondent Nos.1 and 2. Perused the material on record.

¶67

Sri.G.Nataraj more or less reiterated the same grounds taken before the Tribunal. The main ground urged by Sri.G.Nataraj is that the petitioner was not a party to the writ petition and the order passed in the writ petition is not binding on him, so also, there is no explicit order in the writ petition disturbing the selection list, however, this aspect of the matter has been missed by the tribunal and accordingly sought to allow the petition and set-aside the order passed

¶68

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:39606-DB WP No. 7885 of 2024

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

by the tribunal and consequently allow the application, quashing the orders impugned therein.

¶71

Refuting the submission of the learned counsel

¶72

for the petitioner, Sri.Vikas Rojipura supported the order passed by the Tribunal, contending that the orders impugned in the application came to be passed in compliance with the order of this Court, in the writ petition stated supra, which cannot be found fault with. The Tribunal on considering the entire material placed before it, rightly dismissed the application, which does not call for interference at the hands of this court and accordingly sought to dismiss the petition.

¶73

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire writ petition papers.

¶74

The entire lis in this matter revolves around the order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, in Writ Petition No.32005 of 2018. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at paragraph No.7 of its order has clearly stated that the status of Madhugiri as on 1986, when the respondent

¶75

12 - NC: 2025:KHC:39606-DB WP No. 7885 of 2024

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

No.3, was studying in Class-1 to Class-X, was neither a larger urban area, nor a smaller urban or it was not even area in the transition stage from rural to urban area, accordingly has held that third respondent studied in rural area. Further, held that since the third respondent belongs to Scheduled caste as per the certificate, he is definitely entitled to the benefit of appointment as PSI in the SC (Rural) category. A positive direction came to be issued directing to respondent nos. 1 and 2, to consider the case of the third respondent to the post of Police Sub-Inspector, under SC(Rural) Category, and issue appropriate orders within a time bound period of 90 days, subject to the third respondent fulfilling other requirements if any, to the said post. In compliance with the order passed by this Court, the orders impugned in the application came to be passed.

¶78

To a query of this Court Sri.G.Nataraj, with all fairness submitted that the third respondent is more meritorious than the applicant. If that be so, the hypertechnical contentions urged by the petitioner that he was not party in the petition and the order is not binding on him

¶79

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:39606-DB WP No. 7885 of 2024

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

and so also, there is no express order disturbing his selection, does not survive for consideration and all these contentions are of academic in nature.

¶82

Be that an it may, there is nothing placed on record, to show that the applicant / petitioner has filed any petition for review of the order passed by the coordinate bench of this court, providing an opportunity of hearing. The fact remains that the third respondent is more meritorious is not denied. In these circumstances, the hyper-technical academic contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not have legs to stand and cannot be countenanced. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal does not call for interference at the hands of this court. Writ petition sans merits and stands rejected.

¶83

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶84

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶85

JJ

¶86

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

Shivamadaiah M v. the Director General

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivamadaiah M v. the Director General

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Honble Upa Lokayukta Vs Sri K G Manjunath

Nagaraja Srinivasa Rao Vs Reliance Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.

Kum. Saroja G.T Vs the State of Karnataka