- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2020

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. DEVDAS

WRIT PETITION NO.12183/2014 (S - RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI.NAGARAJAIAH,

S/O LATE REVANNA,

AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

R/A R.BYADARHALLI POST,

HULIYURADURGA HOBLI,

KUNIGAL TALUK,

TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 123.

… PETITIONER

(BY SRI. P.N.NANJA REDDY, ADVOCATE (ABSENT))

AND:

1.

BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY

AND SEWERAGE BOARD,

REPRESENTED BY

CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE

OFFICER AND SECRETARY,

1^ST FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN,

BANGALORE – 560 009.

2.

THE CHAIRMAN,

BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY

AND SEWERAGE BOARD,

1^ST FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN,

BANGALORE – 560 009.

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.B.L.SANJEEV, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE

- 2 -

PROCEEDINGS

OF

THE

RECRUITMENT/SELECTION

COMMITTEE DATED 14.06.2013 IN SUBJECT NO.3 PERTAINS

TO THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER (ANNEXURE – E) AS THE

SAME IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND IN VIOLATION OF THE

PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND ETC.,

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE

FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

This writ petition was filed in the month of March, 2014

assailing the decision taken by the Respondent – Bangalore

Water Supply and Sewerage Board declining to consider the

case of the petitioner for the post of helper, a Group D post.

2.As could be seen from the minutes of the meeting held

on 14.6.2013 Subject No.3, though the petitioner’s name is

found in the provisional list of selected candidates at Sl.No.45 at

Annexure A, it is stated that the petitioner cannot be appointed

in view of the communication dated Nil February, 2013 at

Annexure F made by the Police Inspector, Tumkur stating that

on verification of the antecedents of the petitioner, it was found

that a criminal case in Crime No. 170/2008 under Section 457

and 511 IPC was registered against the petitioner before

Kunigal JMFC in C.C.No.839/08. It is also stated that another

- 3 -

case in Crime No.16/2011 was registered against the petitioner

by Huliyurdurga Police Station under Sections 341, 506,

307,504 r/w Section 34 IPC in SC No.49/2012 before the

Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur. However, it is

stated that both the cases had been dismissed. But , an MOB

card has opened against the petitioner and therefore, it was

recommended by the Police Inspector that the petitioner has

criminal antecedents and therefore, he cannot be appointed by

the Respondent – Board.

3.On 09.09.2020 when this matter was heard, the learned

counsel for the Respondent, had pointed out a decision of this

Court in WP No.50198/2014 (GM- Police) in the case of Srinivas

@ Seena Vs. The state of Karnataka and others decided on

23.8.2016. The learned counsel for the petitioner had sought for

time to go through the decision and make his submission.

4. When the matter was called on 16.9.2020, there was

no representation for the petitioner. Today, also there is no

representation for the petitioner.

5. On going through the decision of this Court in the case

of Sri Srinivasa @ Seena Vs. State of Karnataka and others

decided on 23.08.2006, it is found that the petitioner therein

- 4 -

had sought for a writ of mandamus to delete the name of the

petitioner from MOB maintained by the concerned police

station. This Court while referring to the provisions contained in

Order No.1324 of the Karnataka Police Manual, held that while

entering the name of the person in MOB card, the requirement

as found in order No.1324 of the Karnataka Police Manual,

ought to be followed and similarly if a Person is aggrieved by

the entry in MOB card, the process as contemplated under the

said provision for deletion of the name is also