Dismissed¶¶41

Smt. Suma v. Deputy Director

Karnataka HC7 Aug 2025WP/9626/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delay and laches; limitation under Section 21, Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985; belated representation does not extend limitation; KSAT Application No.112/2021 rejected; grievance relating to 1998-99 recruitment; endorsement dated 01.09.2020; condonation of ~16-year delay refused; writ petition under Articles 226/227 dismissed; WP No. 9626 of 2023 (S-KSAT), High Court of Karnataka; NC: 2025:KHC:30712-DB; coram S.G. Pandit and K.V. Aravind JJ.

What did the court decide?

The cause of action arose in the year 1998-99, and the grievance ought to have been raised within the period prescribed under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. ¶¶40

Smt. Suma Vs Deputy Director — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:30712-DB WP No. 9626 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶10

WRIT PETITION No. 9626 OF 2023 (S-KSAT)

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

SMT. SUMA, W/O SRI N. BALASUBRAMANYAM, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, No.2882/A, K-12/1A, 5^TH CROSS ROAD CHAMUNDIPURAM, MYSURU 570004.

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU

¶15

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

(BY SRI C.R. SATYA PRAKASH, ADVOCATE (ABSENT))

¶17

AND:

¶18

DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA No.365, MANGALURU-MYSURU HIGH WAY, SUBBARAYANAKERE, MYSURU 570005.

¶19

…RESPONDENT

¶20

(BY SRI B. RAVINDRANATH, AGA)

¶21

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:30712-DB WP No. 9626 of 2023

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE ORDER DATED 05/07/2022 IN APPLICATION No.112/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶24

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and

¶26

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND)

¶29

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the order dated 05.07.2022, passed in Application No.112/2021 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal').

¶30

The petitioner filed an application challenging the endorsement dated 01.09.2020, seeking certain relief in respect of the recruitment process of the year 1998-99. The petitioner also filed I.A. No.1 before the Tribunal, seeking condonation of a delay of nearly 16 years. The Tribunal, having regard to the fact that the grievance pertains to the recruitment of 1998-99, rejected the application on the ground of delay and laches.

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:30712-DB WP No. 9626 of 2023

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

The petition was listed on 04.08.2025. As there was

¶34

no representation on behalf of the petitioner, the matter was passed over, and when again called, there was still no representation. In order to afford an opportunity to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the matter was adjourned to the present date. Even today, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Having regard to the limited issue arising for consideration before this Court, the writ petition papers have been perused for the purpose of disposal.

¶35

Sri B. Ravindranath, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent, submits that the application was filed before the Tribunal with a delay of over sixteen years. He further submits that the reasons assigned for such delay have not been adequately explained. Accordingly, learned AGA contends that the Tribunal’s order of rejection is justified.

¶36

We have perused the pleadings and considered the submissions of learned AGA.

¶37

It is evident from the record that the petitioner seeks relief in respect of the recruitment for the year 1998-

¶38

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:30712-DB WP No. 9626 of 2023

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

The endorsement dated 01.09.2020 at Annexure-A18 relates to the representation submitted on 03.08.2020. The cause of action, however, arose in the year 1998-99. The grievance ought to have been raised within the period prescribed under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter 'the Act'). A mere representation made at a later stage does not extend the limitation prescribed under Section 21 of the Act. The Tribunal, having rightly appreciated that the challenge pertains to the recruitment process of 1998, dismissed the application on the ground of delay. No justifiable explanation has been offered for condoning such delay.

¶41

In view thereof, no ground is made out to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed .

¶42

Sd/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

¶43

Sd/(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE

¶44

VBS

¶45

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12

Smt. Suma v. Deputy Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Suma v. Deputy Director

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

The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs M/S Oasis Centre Llc

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs Shri Jagadish N Hinduja

Sri Y M Thippesh Vs the Deputy Director

Sri. C. R. Rangaswamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri a v Srinivasulu Naidu Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Kantharaja. Y. M. Vs the State of Karnataka