Sri Kanakappa S/O Duragappa Vs the Deputy Director of Public Institution

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:713 WP No. 102508 of 2024

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JANUARY 2026 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 102508 OF 2024 (S-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI. KANAKAPPA S/O. DURAGAPPA AGED 25 YEARS, OCC: FARMER, R/O. ADAVI BHAVI POST, NEERALAKERI, TQ: LINGASUR, DIST: RAICHUR-584122.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. VADIRAJA PADAKANDLA, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTITUTION HOSAPETE-583201, DIST: VIJAYANAGARA.

¶11

THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BALLARI, DIST. BALLARI-583101.

¶12

GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI

¶13

Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.01.30 10:50:06 +0530

¶14

SRI. B. RAJESH S/O. B. OBAYYA AGED 30 YEARS, OCC: PEON, R/O. D.NO. 136, SULADAHALLI, TQ: KUDLIGI, DIST: BALLARI-583126.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SMT.NANDINI B. SOMAPUR, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI.JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶17

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER APPOINTING THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO THE POST OF PEON VIDE ORDER BEARING OFFICE ORDER NO.52/2024/ADM DATED 18-03-2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-P PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 AND ETC.

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

¶21

2 -

¶22

NC: 2026:KHC-D:713 WP No. 102508 of 2024

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The petitioner has approached this Court calling in

¶26

question the appointment of respondent No.3 to the

¶27

post of peon and seeking consequential reliefs.

¶28

2. Brief facts of the case:

¶29

2.1. The material facts, in brief, are that pursuant to a recruitment notification dated 05.01.2019, issued for filling up the post of Peon, the petitioner as well as respondent No.3 applied for the said post.

¶30

2.2. Initially, the petitioner was selected and appointed. The appointment of the petitioner was challenged by respondent No.3 in an earlier writ petition, which came to be allowed, and the petitioner's appointment was set aside.

¶31

2.3. The Writ Appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order also came to be dismissed.

¶32

3 -

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC-D:713 WP No. 102508 of 2024

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

2.4. Subsequently, on verification of the records

¶36

relating to the educational qualification of respondent No.3, the competent authority accepted the marks card produced by respondent No.3 and appointed him to the post of Peon by order dated 18.03.2024.

¶37

2.5. Aggrieved by the said order, now the present petition is filed.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the marks card produced by respondent No.3 was not genuine and that there are discrepancies relating to total marks and system of evaluation prevailing during the relevant period. It is argued that the authorities failed to properly verify the educational records and that appointment of respondent No.3 is arbitrary.

¶39

Per contra , learned counsel appearing for the respondent authority submitted that the issue relating to petitioner's appointment and the educational

¶40

4 -

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC-D:713 WP No. 102508 of 2024

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

qualification of respondent No.3 has already been considered in earlier proceedings up to the writ appeal stage. It is contended that the competent authority has thereafter verified the records through the Education Department and has taken a conscious decision to appoint respondent No.3. It is further submitted that, the disputed questions of facts sought to be raised cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings.

¶44

Having considered the submissions and perusal of the

¶45

material on record, this Court finds that the dispute sought to be raised by the petitioner essentially relates to the genuineness and correctness of the educational records of respondent No.3. Such issues involve disputed question of facts, requiring examination of original records and evidence, which cannot be undertaken in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶46

5 -

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC-D:713 WP No. 102508 of 2024

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

This Court also notices that earlier round of litigation between the parties has attained finality up to the writ appeal stage. The subsequent action taken by the authority is based on verification by the competent educational authority. No jurisdictional error or patent illegality is made out for warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the authenticity of the educational records or alleged frauds, the appropriate course is to seek redress before the competent Civil Court by leading evidence. In the absence of any violation of statutory provisions or constitutional mandate, interference by this Court is not called for.

¶50

7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶51

Pending I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration.

¶52

gab Ct:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57

¶53

Sd/JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

Sri Kanakappa S/O Duragappa v. the Deputy Director of Public Institution

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Kanakappa S/O Duragappa v. the Deputy Director of Public Institution

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

Jaisheela D/O. Ramchandrappa Chikkannanavar, Vs the Deputy Director of

Smt Basawwa W/O Lokappa Teli Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Jagadish S/O. Shivayya Hombal Vs Karnatak Chambers of Commerce and Industries

Marutesh S/O Veerabhadrappa Betageri Vs the Divisional Controller

Sri N Sathyanarayana Prabhu Vs the Pragathikrishna Grameena Bank

Chandrakant Basavanni Goni Vs the Union of India