Back
VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA
State of Karnataka – Appellant
Versus
Santhosh Kumar C – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background facts of recruitment process (Para 3) |
| 2. court's analysis of statutory rules concerning appointment (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 3. conclusion based on interpretation of 1997 rules (Para 20) |
| 4. final order and dismissal of writ petition (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
JUDGMENT
Vikram Nath, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 21.04.2025 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as the “High Court”) in Writ Petition No. 24455 of 2023 (SKSAT), whereby the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent and set aside the order dated 13.10.2023 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in Application No. 4990 of 2022, as well as the communication dated 27.06.2022 issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of Karnataka (hereinafter referred to as “DPAR”). By the said judgment and order, the High Court directed the appellants, namely the State of Karnataka and its authorities, to consider the case of the respondent for appointment to the po
Inclusion in a select list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment; vacancies arising from non-reporting must be filled through a new recruitment process as per the governing rules.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
