WA/1289/2025 of SMT. DEEPIKA. P. R. Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA on 13 July 2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T M NADAF) This intra court appeal is filed calling in question the order dated 08.04.2025 passed in W.P.No.24492/2024 by the Writ Court. The Writ Court by means of impugned order disposed of the writ petition directing the respondent No.2 to consider the objections filed by the petitioner to the provisional select list and pass appropriate orders in a time bound manner and any appointment order issued in respect of respondent No.3, shall be subject to above exercise by the respondent No.2.

2. Parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Writ Court.

3. The respondent No.2 issued a recruitment notification bearing No.G.PAM.SHI/GP/GRAM/ME.HU.NE/E- 36849/2023-24 dated 01.02.2024 inviting applications for 14 posts of Supervisors of Grama Panchayath Library and Information Centres in 14 Grama Panchayaths of different

HC-KAR

Taluks of Shivamogga District. So far as Thuduru Grama Panchayath is concerned, the post of Supervisor was reserved for ex-servicemen in general category. As per the notification, it is specified that the candidates applying for the post of Supervisor should be residents of Grama Panchayath. The notification further provides that if there are no candidates available from the said Grama Panchayath, who are the residents of Grama Panchayath, the candidates residing in adjoining Grama Panchayath within the Taluk are entitled to apply. The petitioner contends that she has secured 86.83% marks in Pre- University Course and belongs to 2A Category and had applied for the said post. It is her contention that she is not a resident of the concerned Grama Panchayath. However, she is resident of adjoining Grama Panchayath within the Taluk.

4. Further contended that the respondent No.3, who has been selected to the post, was not an ex- serviceman but had secured 76.67%. It was her further

HC-KAR

contention that in all 17 candidates had applied for the post in Thuduru Grama Panchayath. The Grama Panchayath on 06.06.2024 issued Provisional Select List for 14 posts of Supervisors of Grama Panchayath Library and Information Centres. In respect of Thuduru Grama Panchayath is concerned, respondent No.3 was selected as Supervisor. The respondent No.2 - Grama Panchayath invited objections, if any, to the provisional select list. The petitioner has submitted her objections on 21.06.2024 specifically contending that the respondent No.2 was bound to fill up candidates from general category, if there was no ex-serviceman candidate available in the Thuduru Grama Panchayath.

5. Further it was her specific contention that she has secured 86.83% marks and therefore, she was more meritorious than respondent No.3, who has secured only 76.67%. The Grama Panchayath has held a meeting and without considering the objections of the petitioner, arbitrarily selected respondent No.3 in violation of

HC-KAR

Government Order dated 08.03.2023. The petitioner aggrieved by the said exercise of power by the Grama Panchayath, was before the Writ Court calling in question the selection of respondent No.3.

6. The Writ Court has called for records in respect of the selection of candidates by the Grama Panchayath and has observed that there are two more meritorious candidates than the petitioner. The Writ Court further observes that the 5th candidate - Umadevi had Job Oriented Course, which is treated to be equivalent to Pre- University Course and she has secured 98.83%. The Writ Court having observed that though the petitioner has filed objections to the Provisional Selection List, but there is no deliberation on the said objection by the respondent No.2- Grama Panchayath and in the absence of any deliberation on the said objection, the Grama Panchayath proceeded to select the respondent No.3. The Writ Court further observed that once objection was filed by the petitioner, it was incumbent on the respondent No.2 to consider it and

HC-KAR

such consideration must be reflected in the order declaring the final list. Therefore, the Writ Court was of the opinion that the impugned selection process by the respondent No.2 falls foul of the procedure prescribed by the recruitment notification itself. However, the Writ Court further observed that the residence in the Panchayath is not the only criteria and there are other criterions such as education qualification, age, etc. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner that residence within a Panchayath area cannot be a criteria for selection, was not considered.

7. Further the Writ Court observed that the petitioner was not only the candidate who was meritorious amongst the candidates from outside the Grama Panchayath area and she herself is not a resident of the Panchayath concerned. The Writ Court further observed that even if the case of the petitioner is assumed to be correct for the sake of argument, then the petitioner would not stand a chance to be selected as there were three more candidates above the petitioner, who have secured

HC-KAR

more marks than the petitioner. Perhaps this may be including Umadevi and Sl.Nos.1 and 2 at page 13 of the tabular column of the order.

8. In that view of the matter, the Writ court proceeded to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondent No.2 to consider the objection filed by the petitioner to the Provisional Selection List in the light of the observations made in the order and pass appropriate order after hearing the petitioner in a time bound manner. It further directed that until such hearing of the petitioner on the same, the appointment of the respondent No.3 shall not be disturbed. Further observed that the appointment, if any, issued to the respondent No.3, shall be subject to the aforesaid exercise. Assailing this order, the petitioner is before us.

9. We have gone through the entire writ papers and heard the arguments of both the counsel.

HC-KAR

10. The Writ Court considering the entire case and records placed before it, passed the order directing the respondent No.2 to consider the objections and appointment, if any, issued in respect of respondent No.3 would be subject to the outcome of the said exercise.

11. We find no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge to take a contrary view than the one which has already been taken.

12. Writ appeal sans merits and accordingly dismissed.

Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE

Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

DR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23 CT:VS