SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top