Writ Petition No. 4864 of 2022 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1654 WP No. 4864 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO. 4864 OF 2022 (S-RES) …PETITIONER BETWEEN: MADEVAMMA L D/O LATE LINGARAJU, AGED 30 YEARS, AMBEDKAR STREET, KUNAGALLI VILLAGE AND POST, KOLLEGALA TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571442. (BY SRI. RAVI C SANNAPPA, ADV. FOR SRI H MOHAN KUMAR, ADV.) AND: 1. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CHAIRMAN, GRAMPANCHAYATH LIBRARY SUPERVISORS SELECTION COMMITTEE, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT, CHAMARAJANAGARA- 571313. 2. THE CHIEF LIBRARY OFFICER AND MEMBER SECRETARY GRAMAPANCHAYATH LIBRARY SUPERVISORS, SELECTION COMMITTEE, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT, CHAMARAJANAGARA -571313. 3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY AND MEMBER, GRAMAPANCHAYATH LIBRARY SUPERVISORS, SELECTION COMMITTEE, Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1654 WP No. 4864 of 2022 CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT, CHAMARAJANAGARA- 571313. 4. MEGHA M W/O SHIVA KUMAR N, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT NO.195, NEW STREET, AMBEDKAR EXTENSION, UTHAMBALLI VILLAGE, KOLLEGALA TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT- 571442. …RESPONDENTS
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. SHUBANKAR C., ADV. FOR SRI CHANDRAKANTH R GOULAY, ADV. FOR R1 TO R3 SRI P MAHESHA, ADV. FOR R4 SRI M.C. NAGASHREE, ADV. FOR R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE RESOLUTION OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE DATED 16.08.2021, VIDE ANNEXURE-E IN SO FAR AS RESOLUTION NO.2 IS CONCERNED; QUASH THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE R4 DATED 25.10.2021 ISSUED BY THE R2 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND DIRECT THE R1 TO 3 TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE POST OF LIBRARY SUPERVISOR IN KUNAGALLI GRAMAPANCHAYATH LIBRARY, KOLLEGALA TALUK, CHAMARAJNAGAR DISTRICT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT ORAL ORDER Petitioner who is aggrieved by the appointment of respondent No.4 as Library Supervisor to the Kunagalli - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1654 WP No. 4864 of 2022 Gram Panchayath, Kollegal Taluk, Chamarajanagar District by rejecting the candidature of the petitioner is before this court in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, petitioner as well as respondent No.4 applied for the post of Library Supervisor in pursuance to paper publication dated 22.04.2021 inviting application for the post of Library Supervisor in Kunagalli Grama Panchayath. The last date for submitting application was 25.05.2021, along with documents such as SSLC certificate, Domicile certificate for residing in the same village, certificate of reservation, if any claimed etc. The applications of petitioner as well as respondent No.4 was considered along with others. The respondent No.4 was selected and petitioner’s candidature was rejected on the ground that Domicile certificate is not enclosed to the application. Questioning her non-selection and selection of fourth respondent, petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1654 WP No. 4864 of 2022 3. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Ravi C. Sannappa for Sri.H.Mohan Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner, learned counsel Sri.Shubankar.C., for Sri.Chandrakanth R. Goulay, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3, learned counsel Smt.M.C.Nagashree for respondent No.2 and learned counsel Sri.P.Mahesha for respondent No.4.
Decision
Perused the writ petition papers. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the petitioner submitted application in pursuance to notice inviting applications dated 22.04.2021 for the post of Library Supervisor. He submits that the petitioner had applied for the Domicile certificate, but was not furnished before the last date of submitting application. Since the petitioner was not provided Domicile certificate within the last date for submitting application, petitioner could not produce the Domicile certificate. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner ought to have been provided an opportunity to produce the Domicile certificate, since she is the most meritorious - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1654 WP No. 4864 of 2022 candidate. Thus, learned counsel would pray for allowing the writ petition. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the respondents rightly rejected the candidature of the petitioner since she had failed to produce the Domicile certificate along with her application. Learned counsel would point out from the notice inviting applications that production of SSLC certificate, Domicile certificate, Caste certificate are mandatory and moreover the condition for appointment is that, a candidate shall be of the same village. Therefore, production of Domicile certificate would be relevant. Thus, they prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, I am of the view that, the petitioner would not be entitled for any relief as prayed in the writ petition for the following reasons: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1654 WP No. 4864 of 2022 7. It is not in dispute that petitioner as well as respondent No.4 applied for the post of Library Supervisor in pursuance to notice inviting applications dated 22.01.2021. Notice inviting application makes it abundantly clear that the candidates who apply for the post of Library Supervisor shall have to produce the following documents: “ªªªªÉÄðéZÁgÀPÀ ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ Cfð¸À°è¸À®Ä F PɼÀPÀAqÀ ÉÄðéZÁgÀPÀ ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ Cfð¸À°è¸À®Ä F PɼÀPÀAqÀ ÉÄðéZÁgÀPÀ ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ Cfð¸À°è¸À®Ä F PɼÀPÀAqÀ ÉÄðéZÁgÀPÀ ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ Cfð¸À°è¸À®Ä F PɼÀPÀAqÀ CºÀðvÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢gÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ:::: CºÀðvÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢gÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ CºÀðvÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢gÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ CºÀðvÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢gÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ 1) J¸ï.J¸ï.J¯ï.¹ vÉÃUÀðqÉ ºÉÆA¢gÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ.. 2) ¸ÀܽÃAiÀÄ UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw ªÁå¦ÛAiÀÄ°è ªÁ¸ÀªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ. 3) ªÀAiÉÆëÄw PÀ¤µÀ× 18 ªÀµÀð UÀjµÀ× 40 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼ÀÄ. 4) ¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå C¨sÀåyðUÀ½UÉ 35 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼ÀÄ. 5) ¥Àj²µÀ×eÁw/¥Àj²µÀ× ¥ÀAUÀqÀ, ¥ÀæªÀUÀð-1 40 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼ÀÄ. 6) UÀæAxÁ®AiÀÄ «eÁߣÀzÀ°è vÀgÀ¨ÉÃw ¥ÀqÉzÀªÀjUÉ DzÀåvÉ. 7) ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀjPÁ ²PÀët PÉÃAzÀæzÀ°è ¥ÉæÃgÀPÀ/G¥À¥ÉæÃgÀPÀgÁV PÉ®¸À ¤ªÀð»¸ÀĪÀªÀjUÀÆ DzÀåvÉ.” - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:1654 WP No. 4864 of 2022 8. Production of Domicile certificate would be very relevant since one of the conditions for appointment is that, the candidate shall be resident of that particular village. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner had applied for issuance of Domicile certificate and as on the last date of submitting Domicile certificate, petitioner was not issued with the Domicile certificate. If the petitioner had failed to produce the Domicile certificate, petitioner would not be entitled for consideration of her case for appointment as Library Supervisor. 9. This Court in an identical fact situation, in its order dated 23.03.2021 in W.P.No.31255/2016 at paragraphs 8 and 9 has held as follows: “8. Clause-VII of the guidelines dated 19.04.2014 prescribes the documents which shall be produced along with the application. Clause VII reads as follows: VII) CfðAiÉÆA¢UÉ ®UÀwÛ¸À¨ÉÃPÁzÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ:- 1) Cfð ¤UÀ¢vÀ £ÀªÀÄÆ£ÉAiÀÄ°è. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:1654 WP No. 4864 of 2022 2) d£À£À ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæ/d£Àä ¢£ÁAPÀ EgÀĪÀ J¸ï.J¸ï.J¯ï.¹. CAPÀ ¥ÀnÖ. 3) ¤UÀ¢vÀ «zÁåºÀðvÉAiÀÄ CAPÀ¥ÀnÖ. 4) vÀºÀ²Ã¯ÁÝgÀjAzÀ ¥ÀqÉzÀ 6 wAUÀ¼À M¼ÀV£À ªÁ¸À¸ÀܼÀ zÀÈrüÃPÀgÀt ¥ÀvÀæ. 5) C¨sÀåyðUÀ¼À eÁw ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæ. 6) CAUÀ£ÀªÁr ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄQAiÀiÁV ¸ÉÃªÉ ¸À°è¹zÀ §UÉÎ ²±ÀÄ C©üªÀÈ¢Þ AiÉÆÃd£Á¢üPÁjUÀ½AzÀ ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæ. 7) ¥ÀwAiÀÄ ªÀÄgÀt ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæ («zsÀªÁ ªÉÃvÀ£ÀzÀ zsÀÈrüÃPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀjUÀt¸ÀĪÀAw®è). 8) CAUÀ«PÀ®vÉ ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæ (CAUÀ«PÀ® ªÉÃvÀ£ÀzÀ zsÀÈrüÃPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀjUÀt¸ÀĪÀAw®è). 9) «ZÉÑÃzsÀ£À ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæ. 10) ªÀiÁf zÉêÀzÁ¹ §UÉÎ ªÀÄ»¼Á C©üªÀÈ¢Þ ¤UÀªÀÄzÀ C¢üPÁjUÀ½AzÀ ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæ. 11) ¥ÀjvÀåPÉÛ §UÉÎ UÁæªÀÄ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛ¬ÄAzÀ ¥ÀqÉzÀ ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæ. 12) ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ ¤ªÁ¹ §UÉÎ E¯ÁSÉ C¢üPÁjUÀ½AzÀ ¥ÀqÉzÀ ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæ. 13) AiÉÆÃd£Á ¤gÁ²ævÀgÀ §UÉÎ vÀºÀ²Ã¯ÁÝgÀjAzÀ ¥ÀqÉzÀ ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæ. The above clause-VII requires the applicants to enclose 13 documents which includes residential certificate obtained from the Tahsildar. 9. Clause VIII(4) of the above Guidelines reads as follows: VIII(4) CfðAiÉÆA¢UÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà CUÀvÀå zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸À°è¸ÀzÉà EzÀÝ°è CAvÀºÀ CfðUÀ¼À §UÉÎ zÀÈrüÃPÀj¹ wgÀ¸ÀÌj¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:1654 WP No. 4864 of 2022 The above guideline makes it clear that if any of the document is not enclosed along with the application, such application shall be rejected.” 10. Since the petitioner had not produced Domicile certificate along with her application, I do not find any fault in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Library Supervisor. 11. For the reasons recorded above, writ petition stands rejected. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE NC CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36