- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3505-DB WA No. 200137 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K S HEMALEKHA WRIT APPEAL NO.200137 OF 2021 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SHARANABASAPPA S/O MURGEPPA BIRADAR, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: CLERK CUM DATA ENTRY OPERATOR GRAM PANCHAYAT OFFICE, NAGOOR, TQ: DIST: KALABURAGI. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. HEMA L. KULAKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ VIDHAN SOUDHA, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYAT, KALABURAGI, ZP OFFICE, JAGAT CIRCLE, KALABURAGI – 585 101. 3. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUKA PANCHAYAT KALABURAGI, Digitally signed by KHAJAAMEEN MALAGHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3505-DB WA No. 200137 of 2021 TALUKA PANCHAYAT OFFICE, AIWAN-E-SHAHI, KALABURAGI – 585 101. 4. THE GRAM PANCHAYAT NAGOOR VILLAGE NAGOOR, TQ: DIST: KALABURAGI – 585 322 BY ITS PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, 5. RAJKUMAR S/O BASAVARAJ GUDAGI AGE: 35 YEARS, R/O: VILLAGE NAGOOR, TQ: DIST: KALABURAGI – 585 322. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY-GA FOR R1; SRI. ANANTH S. JAHAGIRDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. ARUNKUMAR AMARGUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4; SRI. MAHADEV S. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R5) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT 1961, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND TO ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION NO.203383/2019 DATED:13.08.2021, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ AND HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K S HEMALEKHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3505-DB WA No. 200137 of 2021 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) This intra Court appeal is preferred against the order dated 13.08.2021 passed in W.P.No.203383/2019, wherein the learned Single Judge has dismissed the said writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 08.07.2019 bearing No.GIPAKA/DRDM/GRAPAN/2019-20/178 issued by respondent No.2, at Annexure-D to the writ petition. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for appellant and respondents. 3. Respondent No.5 herein was appointed as a Computer Operator on contractual basis at Gram Panchayat, Nagoor in the year 2007. On the ground of alleged absenteeism, his service was terminated vide resolution dated 13.11.2013 and the appellant herein was appointed as Computer operator on contractual basis. The said resolution was challenged before the Zilla Panchayat, who after conducting an enquiry, annulled the order and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3505-DB WA No. 200137 of 2021 directed that the service of respondent No.5 be continued in the Gram Panchayat, Nagoor Village, Nagore. 4. Learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition, observed that once respondent No.5 was appointed on contractual basis, he could not have been unilaterally removed from service and there was no material to show that he was notified prior to his removal. Further observed that even otherwise, the removal on the ground of absenteeism from work was stigmatic and therefore, he should have been heard. The law declared by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others v. Piara Singh and others reported in (1992) 4 SCC 118 was pressed into service to hold that once respondent No.5 was appointed on contractual basis, he could not have been replaced by another contractual employee. 5. We don’t find any error in the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3505-DB WA No. 200137 of 2021 6. The learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4 would submit on instructions that respondent Nos.3 & 4 are ready to appoint the appellant as a computer operator and respondent No.5 will be appointed as pump operator. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 would submit that the said respondent has accepted the offer and has no objection to the proposed arrangement. 8. The aforementioned arrangement shall be completed within a period of two months, as agreed by respondent Nos.3 and 4. With the above observation, writ appeal is disposed of. Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE Sd/- (K S HEMALEKHA) JUDGE HB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2 CT:NI