Captain Santhosh Kumar. C v. State of Karnataka

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 24455 OF 2023 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN:

CAPTAIN SANTHOSH KUMAR C S/O M LATE CHANDRA REDDY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT NO.126, ANEKAL ROAD CHANDAPURA CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560 081 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SIDDAVEER CHAKKI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

¶1STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVT. VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001

¶2STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT. DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001

3. KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

by SHAKAMBARI Location: High Court of Karnataka NC:(2025:KHC:16276-DB( WP(No.(24455(of(2023( ( ( ( ( PARK,HOUSE,ROAD, BANGALORE-560,001, …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI.,B.,RAVINDRANATH,,AGA,FOR,R1,&,R2;, ,,,,,,SRI.,K.M.,PRAKASH,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R3), , , THIS, WRIT, PETITION, IS, FILED, UNDER, ARTICLES, 226, AND,227,OF,THE,CONSTITUTION,OF,INDIA,PRAYING,TO,CALL, FOR, RECORDS, ON, THE, FILE, OF, KARNATAKA, STATE, ADMINISTRATIVE,TRIBUNAL,AT,BENGALURU,IN,APPLICATION, NO.O.A., NO.4990/2022, AND, SET, ASIDE, THE, ORDER, DATED, 13/10/2023, IN, APPLICATION, NO.O.A., NO.4990/2022, PASSED, BY, THE, KARNATAKA, STATE, ADMINISTRATIVE, TRIBUNAL, AT, BENGALURU,(ANNEXURE-AX),AND,ISSUE,WRIT,IN,THE,NATURE, OF, CERTIORARI, OR, ANY, OTHER, WRIT, TO, QUASH, THE, COMMUNICATION,BEARING,NO.CAaSuEe,90,SSC,2022,DATED, 27/06/2022,AT,ANNEXURE-G,OF,THE,RESPONDENT,NO.2,AND, ETC.,, , THIS, PETITION,, COMING, ON, FOR, PRELIMINARY,, HEARING, IN, 'B', GROUP,, THIS, DAY,, ORDER, WAS, MADE, THEREIN,AS,UNDER:, CORAM:, HON'BLE,MR,JUSTICE,KRISHNA,S,DIXIT, ,and,, ,HON'BLE,MR,JUSTICE,RAMACHANDRA,D.,HUDDAR,

ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT)

Petitioner - an Ex-Serviceman is grieving before the Writ Court against the State Administrative Tribunal's order dated

13.10.2023 whereby, his Application No.4990/2022 has been negatived. In the said Application, he had called in question the communication dated 27.6.2022 by which the second respondent has rejected his claim for issuance of appointment order to the post in question. It is the case of Petitioner that he being immediately next below, should have been appointed to the vacancy that remained unfilled since the selectee did not choose to undergo medical examination which is a pre-condition for appointment.

¶2Learned counsel Mr.Sridhar Prabhu appearing for the petitioner banking upon a Co-ordinate Bench decision of this court in WP No.577/2022 (S-KAT) between State of Karnataka vs. Sri Nagendra G.K., decided on

08.07.2022, submits that when a selected candidate does

not report for duty, the vacancy should eventually go to the candidate immediately next below him. This aspect having not been properly appreciated by the Tribunal, there is error apparent on the face of the order warranting interference of this court for setting the same at right.

¶3The learned AGA appearing for the State and learned Sr.Panel Counsel representing the KPSC oppose the petition contending that merely because a person finds his name in the Select List, that does not give him a justiceable right to appointment. When the selected candidate did not join the post in question, it would at the right time go for public advertisement and Petitioner also can stake his claim for selection & appointment. The Panel Counsel in support of his contention draws our attention to Rule 11(3) of Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers (appointment by Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1997.

¶4Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused petition papers, we are inclined to grant indulgence in the matter agreeing with the submission made on behalf of the Petitioner. Admittedly, the vacancy in the post concerned eventually continues, the selectee not even undergoing medical examination. In a similar circumstance, a Co-ordinate Bench in NAGENDRA supra has observed that, the selected candidate immediately next below should be offered appointment. This having not happened, the Tribunal ought to have interfered in the matter. We are amazed, to say the least that Tribunal did not do that.

¶5We do not see how Rule 11(3) of 1997 Rules in this circumstance would be attracted. The said Rule reads as under: "11. List of candidates suitable for appointment:

(1) …. 2) ….

3) Candidates whose names are included in the list prepared in accordance with the

provisions of sub-rule (1) shall be considered for appointment to the vacancies notified in each of the services and groups of posts in the order in which their names appear in the list.

Provided that, candidate shall be appointed unless the Government is satisfied after such enquiry and verification as may be considered necessary that the candidate is suitable for such appointment."

No reason is assigned by the Government as to why one vacancy that remains unfilled should continue indefinitely merely because the selected candidate did not come forward. In such an event, the Rule that inclusion in the Selection List would not give right of appointment is not applicable, because the Government had decided to appoint. In the above circumstances, this petition is allowed. A Writ of Certiorari issues quashing impugned order of the Tribunal. Petitioner's Application No. having been favoured, the impugned communication is quashed. A Writ of Mandamus issues to the first & second respondents to consider the case of Petitioner for appointment to the post in question and report compliance to the Registrar General of this Court within eight weeks. Non-compliance would be viewed seriously.

Costs are reluctantly made easy.

Sd/- (KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE

Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE

SK/Snb List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38