IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION Nos.14996-14997/2019(LB-RES) BETWEEN:
1. BHARATH KUMAR S/O RAVI R/O AT RAYARAKALLAHALLI VILLAGE ALAKAPURA POST GOWRIBIDANURU TALUK 561213 2. SUSHMA SWARAJ R D/O RAJESHKAR R THODEBAVI HOBLI ALAKAPURA POST GOWRIBIDANURU TALUK 561213 CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI.DEVI PRASAD SHETTY, ADV.) AND 1. ZILLA PANCHAYATH CHIKKABALLAPURA CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT-561213 BY ITS CEO.
2. THE EXTENSION OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYATH GOWRIBIDANURU TALUK 561213 CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.
3. GRAMA PANCHAYATH ALAKAPURA GOWRIBIDNAURU TALUK 561213 BY ITS PRESIDENT 4. GRAMA PANCHAYATH ALAKAPURA GOWRIBIDANURU TALUK 561213 BY ITS P.D.O 5. MAHESHA K S/O KEMPEGOWDA AGED 24 YEARS R/O ALAKAPURA VILLAGE & POST THONDEBAVI HOBLI GOWRIBIDANURU TALUK 561213 CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.B.J.SOMAYAJI, ADV. FOR R1TO R4, SRI.ARAVIND H., ADV. FOR R5.) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE RESOLUTION DTD:26.2.2019 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F ISSUED BY R-3 AND DIRECT THE R-3 AND 4 TO SELECT THE PETITIONERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH MERITS.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R In these writ petitions, the petitioners are challenging the resolution dated 26.2.2019 passed by the respondent No.3 vide Annexure-F.
2. The case of the petitioners is that respondent No.2 had invited applications for the post of Attender through paper publication published in ‘Kannada Prabha’ daily newspaper. Pursuant to the notification, the petitioners have filed the application vide Annexures-B and C along with relevant records. Respondent No.5 has also filed the application as per Annexure-E. Pursuant to that documents produced by the applicants, the Panchayat has issued the list of the merit candidates and Panchayat has passed the resolution on 26.2.2019 vide Annexure-F and selected respondent No.5 for the post of Attender and recommended his name for the said post. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that pursuant to the notification vide Annexure-A, the petitioners have filed an application vide Annexures-B and C with necessary documents. The respondent No.5 has filed the application vide Annexure-E. It is contended that the as per the marks list, the petitioners have scored more marks than the marks scored by the respondent No.5, who is selected candidate. Without considering this, the impugned order is passed appointing respondent No.5 to the post of Attender and he further submitted that the respondent No.5’s application was recommended by 7 members of the Panchayat. Hence, the appointment of the respondents is vitiated. Hence, he sought for allowing the writ petitions.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the Zilla Panchayat and respondent No.5 submits that now the Panchayat has recommended the name of the respondent No.5 for the post of the Attender. The proposal has been submitted to the Zilla Panchayat. Since, the Zilla Panchayat has not taken any decision, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is premature. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the writ petitions.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
6. It is not in dispute that vide Annexure-A dated 9.1.2019, respondent No.3-Grama Panchayat has invited applications for the post of Attender. Pursuant to that, the petitioners have filed applications vide Annexures-B and C respectively. Respondent No.5 has filed the application vide Annexure-E. It is very clear in the application, Annexure-E that 7 members of the Panchayat have recommended the name of the respondent No.5 for selection of the post of Attender. Thus, recommending the respondent No.5 for the said post itself is contrary to law. Even in the mark list prepared by the Panchayat, the petitioner No.1 has scored 73.92% and petitioner No.2 has secured 82.80% and respondent No.5 has scored 56.16%. Inspite of that, respondent No.3 has passed the resolution appointing respondent No.5 as Attender and the Panchayat has not given any reason as to why the petitioners and others have not been considered for the said post. It is very clear that the process of selection of the candidates for the post of the Attender is contrary to law. Therefore, the selection process itself is vitiated. Hence, the resolution passed by the Panchayat vide Annexure-F dated 26.2.2019 is unsustainable.
7. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed.
The impugned resolution dated 26.2.2019 passed by the Grama Panchayat is quashed.
Liberty is reserved to the Panchayat to continue the selection process from the stage of receiving applications.
Sd/- JUDGE DM