Dismissed¶55

Sri Suresh Gowdra v. Principal Chief Conservator of

Karnataka HC7 Jan 2026WP/4144/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Petition No.4144 of 2017 (S-KAT), High Court of Karnataka, decided 07.01.2026 by S.G. Pandit and K.V. Aravind, JJ.; recruitment of Range Forest Officers under notification dated 29.10.2014 (110 posts; 61 for B.Sc Forestry; 9 for 2A Rural); Caste and Income Certificate dated 05.05.2010 valid till 04.05.2015; last date for applications 19.12.2014; fresh certificate dated 07.10.2015 obtained after last date; Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal Application No.2251/2016, order dated 16.01.2017; Ram Kumar Gijroya AIR 2016 SC 1098 applicability left open; writ petition rejected; marks 58.5 (petitioner) vs 97.5 (respondent No.3).

What did the court decide?

None to the petitioner; the writ petition was rejected and the Tribunal's order dated 16.01.2017 in Application No.2251/2016 stands. ¶55

Sri Suresh Gowdra Vs Principal Chief Conservator of — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the petitioner; the writ petition was rejected and the Tribunal's order dated 16.01.2017 in Application No.2251/2016 stands.

¶55

Issue for consideration

Whether the Tribunal's order directing inclusion of respondent No.3's name in the final select list dated 29.10.2014 could be interfered with, where his candidature was rejected for producing a Caste and Income Certificate dated 07.10.2015 obtained after the last date for submitting applications (19.12.2014), but he had produced a certificate dated 05.05.2010 valid as on that last date. +1 more

¶32

Court's answer

Respondent No.3's Caste and Income Certificate dated 05.05.2010, produced along with his application and valid till 04.05.2015, was valid as on the last date for submitting applications (19.12.2014), and respondents No.1 and 2 rightly considered it and permitted him to participate in the selection process.

¶54

Ratio / Principle

Respondents No.1 and 2 properly permitted respondent No.3 to write the preliminary and main examinations and to participate in the selection process based on the Caste and Income Certificate dated 05.05.2010.

¶50

Key takeaways

In view of the factual position (the 05.05.2010 certificate being valid on the last date for applications), the Court expressly declined to examine whether the Ram Kumar Gijroya precedent would apply.obiter¶54
No ground was made out to interfere with the Tribunal's impugned order; the writ petition lacks merit and stands rejected.ratio¶55

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Division Bench: S.G. Pandit and K.V. Aravind, JJ.) dismissed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal's order dated 16.01.2017 in Application No.2251/2016, which had directed inclusion of respondent No.3's name in the final select list dated 29.10.2014 for 110 Range Forest Officer posts (61 reserved for B.Sc (Forestry) candidates, 9 earmarked for 2A Rural). Respondent No.3's candidature had been rejected because his Caste and Income Certificate dated 07.10.2015 was obtained after the last date for submitting applications (19.12.2014), whereupon the petitioner, who scored 58.5 marks against respondent No.3's 97.5, was appointed against a 2A Rural post. Holding that respondent No.3 had produced a Caste and Income Certificate dated 05.05.2010 along with his application, valid till 04.05.2015 and therefore valid on the last date, and that respondents No.1 and 2 rightly considered it and permitted him to write the preliminary and main examinations and participate in the selection process, the Court found no ground to interfere and rejected the writ petition, expressly leaving open whether Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, AIR 2016 SC 1098, applied. Respondent No.3, appointed pursuant to the Tribunal's direction, continues as Range Forest Officer.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:812-DB WP No. 4144 of 2017

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 PRESENT

¶5

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

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 4144 OF 2017 (S-KAT)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI SURESH GOWDRA S/O YALLANNA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, RESIDING AT POST KADIWAL KALLAPUR, TALUK HUNAGUND BAGALKOT-587120.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SUBRAMANYA BHAT M., ADV.)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by NANJUNDACHARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST & CHIEF OF FOREST FORCE ARANYA BHAVAN, 18^TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU-560 003.

¶15

THE ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL CHIEF 2. CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (PERSONNEL AND RECRUITMENT) AND CHIEF EXAMINER FOR RECRUITMENT TO THE POST OF RFO S ARANYA BHAVAN, 18^TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU-560003.

¶16

SRI SANJAYA B S S/O SOMASHEKHARAPPA B S AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:812-DB WP No. 4144 of 2017

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

R/AT BETTADA HALLI VILLAGE TARIKERE TLAUK-577228 CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 & R2 SRI G.K. BASAVARAJA PATEL, ADV. FOR R3)

¶22

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 16.01.2017 PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.2251/2016 BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE VIDE ANNEX-E, AS THE SAME SUFFERS FROM ERROR WHICH IS APPARENT ON THE FACT OF RECORD AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

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

¶27

The petitioner, respondent No.3 before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short “Tribunal”) is before this Court in this Writ Petition, questioning the order dated 16.01.2017 in Application No.2251/2016, by which, the application of Respondent No.3 herein was allowed, directing to include his name in the final select list dated 29.10.2014 of the Range Forest

¶28

Officers, subject to other eligibility.

¶29

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:812-DB WP No. 4144 of 2017

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

Heard learned counsel Sri.Subramanya Bhat for petitioner, learned AGA Sri.V.Shivareddy for respondents No.1 and 2 and Sri.G.K.Basavaraja Patel, learned counsel for respondent No.3. Perused the entire writ petition papers. The parties shall be referred to hereinafter as per their ranking before this Court.

¶32

The first respondent, by notification dated 29.10.2014 invited applications to fill up 110 posts of Range Forest Officers, out of which, 61 posts were reserved for the candidates possessing B.Sc (Forestry). Out of 61 posts, 9 posts were earmarked for 2A Rural Candidates. The petitioner and respondent No.3 herein belonged to 2A Rural category. The petitioner had scored 58.5 marks, whereas, respondent No.3 had scored 97.5 marks. On the ground that respondent No.3 had produced Caste and Income Certificate dated 07.10.2015, obtained subsequent to the last date for submitting applications,

¶33

the candidature of respondent No.3 was rejected and the petitioner herein was selected and appointed as Range

¶34

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:812-DB WP No. 4144 of 2017

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

Forest Officer against a post earmarked for 2A Rural category. The final select list and appointment of petitioner was challenged by respondent No.3 before the Tribunal in Application No.2251/2016 and the Tribunal under impugned order allowed the application of respondent No.3, placing reliance on the RAM KUMAR GIJROYA v/s DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD AND ANOTHER reported in AIR 2016 SC 1098 . Questioning the said order of the Tribunal, petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition.

¶37

Learned counsel Sri.Subramanya Bhat for petitioner would submit that respondent No.3 had not produced 2A (Rural Certificate) along with his application and as such, the case of respondent No.3 for selection and appointment to the post of Range Forest Officer in pursuance of the notification dated 29.10.2014 was not considered and his candidature was rejected. Subsequently, respondent No.3 obtained Caste and Income Certificate dated 07.10.2015 and produced before the Selection Committee at the time

¶38

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:812-DB WP No. 4144 of 2017

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

of verification of documents which was rightly rejected by respondents No.1 and 2. Thus, he would submit that the candidate who has failed to produce Caste and Income Certificate obtained before the last date for submitting applications would not be entitled for consideration of his case for selection and appointment. It is submitted that the Tribunal wrongly applied the principles laid down in RAM KUMAR GIJROYA case and erroneously allowed the application. Thus, he would pray for allowing the writ petition.

¶41

Per contra, learned counsel Sri.G.K.Basavaraja Patel appearing for respondent No.3 would submit that he is more meritorious than the petitioner and further he submits that initially, at the time of submitting the application, the petitioner had submitted Caste and Income Certificate dated 05.05.2010 which had the validity for 5 years. It is submitted that the Caste and Income Certificate dated 05.05.2010 was in force as on the last date for submitting the application i.e.,

¶42

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:812-DB WP No. 4144 of 2017

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

19.12.2014. As such, the Selection Authority ought to have considered the said Caste and Income Certificate and ought to have selected respondent No.3 as Range Forest Officer. It is his submission that during the course of selection process, Caste and Income Certificate dated 05.05.2010 had expired and he obtained fresh Caste and Income Certificated dated 07.10.2025. Thus, he would submit that the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the contentions of respondent No.3 and allowed the application and in pursuance of the direction of the Tribunal, respondent No.3 was appointed and he is working as on this date as Range Forest Officer.

¶45

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, we are of view that the petitioner has not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, more particularly, when respondent No.3 had produced the Caste and Income Certificate dated 05.05.2010 along

¶46

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:812-DB WP No. 4144 of 2017

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

with his application which was valid as on the last date for

¶49

submitting the application i.e., 19.12.2014.

¶50

The notification inviting application would indicate that, unless one produces the relevant documents along with the application, he would not be permitted to write the preliminary examination. In the instant case, respondent No.3 was permitted to write preliminary examination and he was qualified in the preliminary and main examination. It appears that respondents No.1 and 2 permitted respondent No.3 to write preliminary and main examination and to participate in the selection process based on the Caste and Income Certificate dated 05.05.2010, which is proper.

¶51

Normally, the Caste and Income Certificate would be valid for 5 years and respondent No.3 obtained the Caste and Income Certificate 05.05.2010 which was valid till 04.05.2015. Thereafter, respondent No.3 appears to have obtained fresh Caste and Income Certificate dated 07.10.2015. However, the Caste and Income Certificate

¶52

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:812-DB WP No. 4144 of 2017

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

dated 05.05.2010 was valid as on the last date for submitting the application, shall have to be considered by the Selection Committee. In the instant case, the respondents No.1 and 2 have rightly considered the Caste and Income Certificate dated 05.05.2010 and permitted Respondent No.3 to participate in the selection process. In view of above factual position, we need not examine as to whether RAM KUMAR GIJROYA case would apply or not.

¶55

In the light of the above, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the writ petition stands rejected .

¶56

Sd/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

¶57

Sd/(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE

¶58

MPK CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41

Sri Suresh Gowdra v. Principal Chief Conservator of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Suresh Gowdra v. Principal Chief Conservator of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S Nvidia Graphics Pvt.Ltd.

Girija Dogu Vs Sandeep Poojary

Mansoor Ahmed Vs Smt Shanthamma

Smt Anila T P Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Bhojappa, Vs the Union of India

Sri H N Basavaraju Vs the State of Karnataka