2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 57259
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
WRIT PETITION NO.14485/2022 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
1.
SRINIVASA T
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
S/O THIPPESWAMY K
R/O HULIGERE,
MADALURU (POST),
SIRA TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572137.
2.
HAREESH S H
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
HONUMANTHOORDDY
R/O 8, 3RD FLOOR,
8TH MAIN ROAD, 17TH CROSS,
AGRAHARA, DASARAHALLI,
BASAVESHWARANAGARA,
BANGALORE 3 560079.
3.
LOKESHA V
S/O LATE VENKATAIAH
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/O A.M. DODDI
K.D HALLI POST
MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DIST 3 562120.
2
4.
KAMALA BAI E,
D/O ESHWARA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/O #5 SRI SAILAXMINILAYA
LOTTEGOLLAHALLI= R.M.V. 2ND STAGE
BENGALURU 3 560094.
5.
K.M. MOHAN
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
S/O S. MARIGOWDA
R/O NO-1940, TOP FLOOR,
1ST MAIN, 8TH CROSS, M.C. LAYOUT,
VIJAYANAGARA - 560040.
6.
SUDHAKARA REDDY H
S/O HANUMANTHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/O VYCHAKURAHALLI,
RAMAPURA (POST), GAURIBIDANUR,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 561210
7.
NAGARAJA B
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
S/O. BEERAPPA,
R/O. KADIRANGARIKOTE,
BAGEPALLI TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT 3 563124.
8.
RAMESH REDDY T B
S/O BUDDAREDDY
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/O TURIKESHAPALLI-3
CHAKAVEL POST, BAGEPALLI TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DIST 3 563124.
9.
JAGADESH N.M
S/O HUNMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
H NAASANDRA,
DODEKERUGOWDA POST,
GOURIBEDANURU TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA 3 561208.
3
10.
KUMAR V
S/O VENKATANARASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/O NO.70, MANGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
BENGALURU NORTH, SULIKERE POST,
BENGALURU 3 560060.
11.
GANGARAJU S
S/O SHIVAKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/O HADIHOSAHALLI,
THYAMAGEPALLI HOBLI,
TYAMAGUNDLU, OBANNAPURA POST
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DIST 3 562132.
12.
GAUTHAM H N
S/O NAGAIAH H S
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/O 139, 7TH MAIN, 7TH CROSS,
POORNA PRAGNA LAYOUT,
UTTARAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560061
13.
CHANDRIKA HY.
W/O YARRAPPA H C
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/O NO.2668/35, 12TH MAIN ROAD,
E BLOCK, 3RD CROSS,
SUBRAMANYA NAGARA
RAJAJINAGARA 2ND STAGE,
BANGALORE 3 560010.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI RAJASHEKAR, ADV.)
AND:
1.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU 3 560001.
4
2.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS
(DPAR SERVICES)
VIKASA SOUDHA,
DR.B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
3.
KARNATAKA PUBLIC
SERVICE COMMISSION
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
<PARK HOUSE=, UDYOGA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
4.
DR. PRAKASH .S
S/O BHARAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/O. NO.1877, 7TH MAIN,
E BLOCK, 2ND STAGE,
RAJAJINAGAR,
BANGALORE 3 560010.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ARUNA SHYAM, AAG A/W
SMT. SHILPA S.GOGI, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A
WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
21/04/2022 PASSED BY THE HON9BLE TRIBUNAL REJECTING THE
INTERIM PRAYER IN APPLICATION NOS. 1191-1204/2022 ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR <ORDERS= THIS
DAY, G.NARENDAR J, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
5
Heard the learned senior counsel Sri D.R. Ravishankar
along with the learned counsel for the petitioners.
The petitioners are before this Court being
aggrieved by the order dated 21.04.2022 passed by the
Tribunal on their interlocutory application.
The brief facts are that:
The petitioners had moved the applications
No.1191 to 1204/2022 and the same are pending. In the
said applications, the petitioners have sought for the
following reliefs:-
a) <ISSUE a writ, order or direction in the nature of
certiorari quashing the Karnataka Act No.14 of
2022 published in the Official Karnataka Extra-
Ordinary Gazette dated 14-03-2022 Vide No.
DPAL 02 SHASHANA 2022, Bengaluru <Karnataka
Civil
Services
(Validation
of
Selection
and
Appointment
of
2011
Batch
Gazetted
Probationers) Act, 2022 as unconstitutional and
ultra-vires as per Annexure 3 A8 and
6
b) ISSUE a writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus directing the respondents to re-do the
entire selection process by issuing the new
Notification for the appointment of 362 Gazetted
Probationers, exclusively to those candidates who
participated in the said selection process in the
interest of justice and equity;
c) GRANT such other and further reliefs as this
Hon9ble Court deems fit in the facts and
circumstances of the case.=
On a reading of prayer 8A9 it is seen that the
petitioners have sought for invalidating the Validation Act
being Karnataka Act No.14 of 2022 published in the Gazette
on
14.03.2022
whereby,
the
selection
of
Gazetted
Probationers 2011 batch came to be validated.
The learned senior counsel Sri A.S. Ponnanna
would invite the attention of the Court to Annexure-B to the
writ petition, being an order of the PIL Bench headed by the
then Hon9ble Chief Justice. The subject and scope of the PIL
was the very same Validation Act. In fact, in para 3 the PIL
Bench has recorded the reliefs sought, which are as under:-
7
<a)
Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or
any other appropriate writ, direction or order
declaring the impugned Act, The Karnataka Civil
Services (Validation of Selection and Appointment of
2011 Batch Gazetted Probationers) Act, 2022, Dated
14.03.2022
vide
ANNEXURE-J,
as
being
unconstitutional, illegal and void, and/or
b)
Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or
any other appropriate writ, direction or orders setting
aside
the
appointment
orders
issued
dated
22.03.2022, vide ANNEXURE-K in pursuance of the
impugned Act vide ANNEXURE-J.
c)
Pass any other orders as may be deemed fit in
the facts and circumstances of this case.=
On perusal of the same, it is seen that the relief
sought for in the PIL and the relief sought for in the
applications are virtually one and the same. The PIL Bench
after hearing the counsel for the petitioners therein, has
observed and held in para 6 as under:-
<6.
We are of the considered view that the
entire Act would not become bad in law simply
because the earlier selection was challenged in the
High Court and was quashed and thereafter, the
impugned Act has come in force. Learned counsel for
the petitioner has not been able to show any
provision of the impugned Act which can be treated
to be unconstitutional, illegal or void.=
8
From a reading of the above, it is apparent that
the PIL Bench has in fact clothed the Validation Act with
some sanctity. Be that as it may, it is submitted that
subsequent to the dismissal the Public Interest Litigants
have carried it forward to the Hon9ble Apex Court and the
same is pending before the Hon9ble Apex Court.
Be that as it may, the subject matter that is
before this Court is the correctness of the Tribunal9s order
dated 21.04.2022 rejecting the interim relief. On a reading
of the impugned order, it is seen that a representation has
been made to the Tribunal, that the PIL filed has been
rejected by this Court and in that view, the tribunal has
deemed it fit to reject the interim relief prayed for by the
petitioners.
As noted supra, whether the applications are
maintainable or