Sri Kanumanayaka B R v. The Deputy Commissioner

NC:(2026:KHC:3779( WP(No.(23518(of(2024( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU(

NDDATED(THIS(THE(22 (DAY(OF(JANUARY,(2026(

BEFORE( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(H.T.(NARENDRA(PRASAD( WRIT(PETITION(NO.(23518(OF(2024((S-RES)( BETWEEN:(( ,

SRI,KANUMANAYAKA,B,R, S/O,RAMANNA, AGED,ABOUT,39,YEARS,

R/O,BAGGANADU,VILLAGE, J,G,HALLI,HOBLI,,HIRIYURU,TALUK, CHITRADURGA,DISTRICT,-,577511.,

…PETITIONER, (BY,SRI.,RAMESH,K,R.,,ADVOCATE),

AND:( ,

1., THE,DEPUTY,COMMISSIONER,

CHITRADURGA,DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA,-,577501., ,

Digitallytisignedtiby 2., THE,ASSISTANT,COMMISSIONER, MALATHI0CHALUVA IYENGAR CHITRADURGA,SUB,DIVISION,, Location:0HIGH CHITRADURGA,-,577,501., COURTOF , KARNATAKA

3., THE,TAHASILDAR, HIRIYURU,TALUK, HIRIYURU,,CHITRADURGA,DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA,-,577501., …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI.G,RAMESH,NAIK,,AGA.,FOR,R1,TO,R3), , THIS, WRIT, PETITION, IS, FILED, UNDER, ARTICLES, 226, AND, 227, OF, THE, CONSTITUTION, OF, INDIA, PRAYING, TO, QUASH,THE, IMPUGNED, ORDER, DATED:, 20.09.2022,,PASSED, RDBY,THE,3 ,RESPONDENT,BEARING,NO:,H.O.A.CR:,21/2017-18, AT,ANNEXURE-J,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 H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, calling in question the notification dated 16.08.2024 issued by the Tahsildar, Hiriyur Taluk, vide Annexure-H, whereby applications were invited to post of Village Assistant for Katanayakanahalli Revenue Circle, J.G. Halli Hobli, Hiriyur Taluk, and also seeking to quash the order dated

20.09.2022 passed by respondent No.3 vide Annexure-J, dismissing the petitioner from service.

¶2Briefly stating, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Bagganadu Village, J.G. Halli Hobli, Hiriyur Taluk, Chitradurga District. Respondent No.3 issued a notification dated 30.05.2020 inviting applications for appointment to the post of Village

Assistant for Katanayakanahalli Revenue Circle, J.G. Halli Hobli, Hiriyur Taluk. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner applied for the said post and was called for interview vide notice

11.11.2021 (Annexure-A), fixing interview on 07.01.2022. The petitioner appeared for the interview and was selected to the post of Grama Sahayaka. However, despite his selection, no appointment order was issued to him by the respondent-authorities. Consequently, the petitioner submitted a representation

06.12.2022 (Annexure-C) to Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga District. The Deputy Commissioner sought a report from Assistant Commissioner, who submitted his report dated 12.06.2023 (Annexure-D). Thereafter, Tahsildar issued impugned notification dated 16.08.2024 (Annexure-H) calling for fresh applications to the post of Grama Sahayaka for Katanayakanahalli Revenue Circle, J.G. Halli Hobli, Hiriyur Taluk. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court.

¶3After issuance of notice, the Tahsildar filed an affidavit dated 24.02.2025 stating that the appointment order was not served on the petitioner on the ground that he was not residing in Bagganadu Village and that his whereabouts were not known. It is further stated that, by order dated 20.09.2022, the petitioner was dismissed from service. The said order was admittedly not communicated to the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an amended petition challenging the dismissal order.

¶4A perusal of the affidavit filed by the Tahsildar dated 24.02.2025 discloses that the appointment order dated 16.05.2022 was not served on the petitioner on the ground that he was not residing in Bagganadu Village. However, report submitted by Assistant Commissioner to Deputy Commissioner

12.06.2023 categorically states that the petitioner was residing in Bagganadu Village as a permanent resident. It is thus evident that though the petitioner was selected and appointed as a Grama Sahayaka, the appointment order

dated 16.05.2022 was not served on him. After the filing of the writ petition, the learned Additional Government Advocate produced Annexure-J, stating that the petitioner was terminated from service on 20.09.2022 on the ground of dereliction of duty while working as a Grama Sahayaka at Katanayakanahalli. However, in the affidavit filed by the Tahsildar, it is clearly stated that the appointment order was not served on the petitioner and that he had not reported for duty. The reason assigned in the termination order is therefore contrary to affidavit

24.02.2025 filed by the Tahsildar. The impugned order at Annexure-J has been passed without authority of law, without issuing any notice to the petitioner, and the same was also not communicated to him. For these reasons, the impugned order at Annexure-J is liable to be quashed.

¶5In view of Annexures-A and B, it is clear that the petitioner was selected to the post of Grama Sahayaka for Katanayakanahalli Revenue Circle, J.G. Halli Hobli. Consequently, the notification dated 16.08.2024 issued

vide Annexure-H calling for fresh applications to fill up the said post also cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed.

¶6Accordingly, the following: ORDER

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

(ii) The order dated 20.09.2022 passed by the third respondent vide Annexure-J and the notification

16.08.2024 issued by third respondent vide Annexure-H, insofar as Item No.3 – Katanayakanahalli, J.G. Halli Hobli is concerned, are hereby quashed.

(iii) The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Grama Sahayaka, Katanayakanahalli Revenue Circle, J.G. Halli Hobli, Hiriyur Taluk, Chitradurga District, keeping in view Annexures-A and B and the report submitted by

the Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure-D dated 12.06.2023, as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

CM LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 60