Smt Anila T P Vs the State of Karnataka

SMT. ANILA T P W/O JAYAPRAKASH M AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT 79, 80, ‘KAILASAM’; IV TH A MAIN, 8^TH CROSS, SIR M V NAGAR RAMAMURTHY NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 016. …PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. M.S. RAJENDRA, ADV. FOR SRI VIVEK HOLLA, ADV.)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by NANJUNDACHARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOME VIDHANA VEEDHI DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶15

THE AGP RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE DEPARTMENT OF PROSECUTION AND GOVERNMENT LITIGATION GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. K.R. RAJENDRA, AGA FOR R1 & R2)

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:815-DB WP No. 12268 of 2021

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER, DIRECTION QUASHING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION NO.8271/2014 PASSED ON 15/12/2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-A; B) CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORDS PERTAINING TO SELECTION AND APPOINTMENT TO THE POST OF ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR CUM ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER PURSUANT RECRUITMENT NOTIFICATION VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

¶25

The petitioner, an unsuccessful candidate in the

¶26

recruitment of APP-cum-AGP in the Department of Prosecution and Government Litigation is before this Court in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the order dated 15.12.2020 in Application No.8271/2014 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short “Tribunal”), rejecting petitioner’s challenge to final selection list of

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:815-DB WP No. 12268 of 2021

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

candidates i.e., respondents No.3 to 23 produced at

¶30

Annexure-A2 dated 15.02.2014 and for a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent No.2 to select the petitioner under General Merit Women category.

¶31

Heard Sri.M.S.Rajendra, learned counsel for Sri.Vivek Holla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.K.R.Rajendra, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents. Perused the entire writ petition papers.

¶32

The respondents invited applications to fill up the posts of Assistant Public Prosecutor/Government Pleaders (for short “APP-cum-AGPs”) in the department of Prosecution and Government Litigation by notification dated 16.05.2012. In pursuance of the said notification, final merit list of selected candidates was published on 15.02.2014 and appointments have been made in pursuance of the said final select list. The petitioner approached the Tribunal, questioning the final select list insofar as respondents No.3 to 23 are concerned.

¶33

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:815-DB WP No. 12268 of 2021

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

However, it is seen that no private respondents are made parties to the present writ petition. The petitioner alleged that the selection list is on the basis of manipulated marks and further he submits that, against certain of the candidates, criminal cases have been filed and action is initiated for playing fraud in the process of selection. It is also submitted that certain of the selected and appointed candidates have been removed/suspended. Therefore, he submits that the selection and appointment of APP-cumAGPs in pursuance of the notification dated 16.05.2012 is vitiated by fraud. Further, learned counsel Sri.M.S.Rajendra would submit that since certain of the selected and appointed candidates have been removed, the petitioner would become eligible to be appointed against the vacancies of such removed candidates. It is his further submission that Lokayukta has also investigated into the fraud or mischief committed in the process of selection and has submitted a report holding that there is fraud and misrepresentation in the selection

¶36

5 -

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:815-DB WP No. 12268 of 2021

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

and appointment of APP-cum-AGPs. Thus, he would pray

¶40

for allowing the writ petition, by setting aside the impugned order passed by the Tribunal.

¶41

On the other hand, learned AGA would submit that fraud or any other allegation is not proved in any departmental or judicial proceedings, and as such, the allegations are yet to be proved. It is his further submission that, it is not the case of the petitioner that a lesser meritorious candidate has been appointed. Moreover, it is submitted that affected parties have not been made parties to the present writ petition. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶42

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and

¶43

on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner has not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned order and to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to

¶44

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:815-DB WP No. 12268 of 2021

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

consider the case of the petitioner for selection and appointment of APP-cum-AGPs.

¶47

Under notification at Annexure-B dated 16.05.2012, the second respondent-Selection Committee invited applications to fill up the posts of APP-cum-AGPs in the department of Prosecution and Government Litigation. It is seen that the final select list in pursuance of selection process was published on 15.02.2014 and the candidates have been appointed. It is not the case of the petitioner that lesser meritorious candidates have been appointed as APP-cum-AGPs. The petitioner has not disclosed her marks anywhere in the writ petition. The petition averments would also not indicate the appointment of any lesser meritorious candidate. It is the case of the petitioner that the selection is vitiated by fraud and that the merit list prepared is on the basis of manipulated marks. Such allegation is not proved in any of the proceedings, either judicial or criminal proceedings. In the absence of such allegation being proved in any

¶48

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:815-DB WP No. 12268 of 2021

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

proceedings, it remains as a mere allegation. Unless,

¶51

fraud or allegation of manipulated marks is proved, no cause of action would arise for the petitioner to question the selection list.

¶52

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that

¶53

some of the candidates appointed have been removed/suspended and hence, the petitioner would become eligible for the vacancy arising out of such removal/suspension. It is to be noted here itself that if a person is removed or suspended, the candidate who has participated in the selection proceedings earlier cannot claim appointment for such vacancy. Moreover, if a person is suspended, it cannot be considered as vacancy and no person can claim appointment for the post which became vacant due to suspension. Thus, we do not find any merit in the writ petition.

¶54