Sri Shivashankaraswamy P N Vs the State of Karnataka

SRI. THIPPESWAMY S S/O LATE KALESIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/A MUDDAPURA POST, CHITRADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT -577521. SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS

¶16

2.1. HANUMAKKA C., W/O LATE THIPPESWAMY S., AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

¶17

2.2. SMT. PALLAVI B. T., D/O LATE THIPPESWAMY S., W/O. ULLAS PRABHU, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

¶18

2.3. LOHITH BABU B T S/O LATE THIPPESWAMY S., AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:13134-DB WP No. 20946 of 2024

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

2.4. CHDRANDU B T S/O LATE THIPPESWAMY S., AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT MUDDAPURA POST, CHITRADURGA TALUK & DISTRICT - 577 201.

¶23

…PETITIONERS

¶24

(BY SRI SATHISHA D. J., ADVOCATE)

¶25

AND:

¶26

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, PORTS AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU -560001.

¶27

THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PARK HOUSE, BENGALURU -560001.

¶28

SRI. ACHUTHA D.R., AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/A No.851, GIRIDARSHINI, BEHIND VIDYAVAHINI COLLEGE, 12^TH CROSS, SIT EXTENSION, TUMKUR-572106.

¶29

SRI. MADANKUMAR SHINDE, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/A MATRUCHAYA BUILDING, DURGANAGAR, HALIYALA, KARWAR (U.K) 581329.

¶30

SRI. RAMACHANDRA M., AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/A D.N.641, TALUK OFFICE ROAD, T. NARASIPURA 571124, MYSORE DISTRICT.

¶31

SRI. DEVARAJU D.G., AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/A DODDAVEERANA HALLI, C. NANDIHALI POST, TUMKUR TALUK 572117.

¶32

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:13134-DB WP No. 20946 of 2024

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

SRI. SRINIVASA N., S/O NARIGADU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/A No.525, RACHAPPA GARDE, BASAPPA ROAD, SHANTHINGAR, BENGALURU -560027.

¶35

SRI. RAGHAVENDRA M., AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/A No.3307/2A, MCC BLOCK, OPP. SHANKARIEELA GAS AGENCY, DAVNAGERE -577004.

¶36

…RESPONDENTS

¶37

(BY SRI V. SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R1; SRI K.M. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶38

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER AT ANNEXURE-B, IN APPLICATION No.11133-11134/2016 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE VIDE ORDER DATED 30.8.2022 ETC.

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

ORAL ORDER

¶42

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

¶43

Heard Sri D. J. Sathisha, learned counsel for the

¶44

petitioners; Sri V. Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and Sri K. M. Prakash, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶45

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:13134-DB WP No. 20946 of 2024

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

This writ petition is filed by the unsuccessful applicants in Application Nos.11133–11134/2016, impugning the order dated 30.09.2022 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’).

¶48

The brief facts of the case are that a notification was issued to fill up backlog vacancies to the post of Assistant Engineers reserved for the SC category. As per the notification, the eligible candidates were required to possess the prescribed educational qualification as on 21.11.2001. The petitioners were not selected in the selection list. The petitioners filed an application before the Tribunal contending that they had completed the course prior to the cut-off date; however, the degree certificates were issued during March and October 2002, and therefore they were eligible to be considered for selection. It was further contended that respondent No.6, who was similarly situated, had been selected though his acquisition of qualification was after the cut-off date. The Tribunal, rejecting the said contention, dismissed the application.

¶49

Sri D. J. Sathisha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, reiterating the contentions urged before the

¶50

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:13134-DB WP No. 20946 of 2024

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

Tribunal, submits that if the completion of the course is taken into consideration, the petitioners would be eligible for selection. It is submitted that when respondent No.6 has been selected even though he has acquired the qualification after the cut-off date, the petitioners are also entitled to be considered for selection on parity.

¶53

Sri K. M. Prakash, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, submits that the petitioners acquired the B.E. degree in the months of March and October 2002, i.e., after the cut-off date of 21.11.2001. Learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal, after examining the mark cards of respondent No.6, has held that the degree was completed on 10.10.2001, which is prior to the cut-off date. Hence, learned counsel submits that the contentions urged are baseless.

¶54

Sri V. Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1, supports the submissions made by Sri K. M. Prakash, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

¶55

6 -

¶56

NC: 2026:KHC:13134-DB WP No. 20946 of 2024

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

We have considered the submissions made by the

¶59

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

¶60

The petitioners are before this Court on two grounds. Firstly, it is contended that they are eligible for consideration as they had completed the course prior to the cut-off date. It is undisputed that the B.E. degree was issued to the petitioners only in March and October 2002. When the cutoff date is 21.11.2001, the petitioners had not acquired the requisite educational qualification. Once the petitioners were not qualified to submit the application, the non-inclusion of their names in the selection list cannot be faulted. Further, an ineligible candidate cannot be said to have any locus to question the final selection list. Unless the petitioners establish their eligibility to participate in the selection process, they do not acquire the locus to question the process of selection or the final selection list itself. Secondly, it is contended that respondent No.6, though he had completed his degree after the cut-off date, has been selected to the post. This submission is without any justification. The Tribunal, upon examination of the

¶61

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:13134-DB WP No. 20946 of 2024

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

mark cards placed on record, has recorded a finding that respondent No.6 acquired the degree on 10.10.2001. The petitioners have not placed any material to dispute or controvert the findings recorded by the Tribunal. In the light of the above, the said contention is not sustainable.

¶64

This writ petition has been filed impugning the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal without pointing out any infirmity or illegality in the order. The finding recorded by the Tribunal is based on facts that are not in dispute. Though we are of the view that the petition deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs, as it has been filed by abusing the

¶65

process of law, taking a lenient view, no costs are imposed.

¶66

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed .

¶67

Sd/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

¶68

Sd/(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE

¶69

VBS/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19

Sri Shivashankaraswamy P N v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Shivashankaraswamy P N v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India Vs v. S. Patilkulkarni

Union of India Vs Sri Ganapathi Bhat Prasad

Union of India Vs K Jayasimha

Union of India Vs Smt. Anthony Mary

Sri Suresha S Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Girish K C., Vs the State of Karnataka