- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10316 WP No. 8859 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 8859 OF 2019 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. M. NAGESHA S/O SRI. MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/O BIMANGALA GRAMA SIDDALAGHATTA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NARAYANA SWAMY V.K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATH RAJ VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001 2. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYAT CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562101. 3. CHIMANGALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH SIDDLAGHATTA TALUK CHICKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562101 BY ITS SECRETARY 4. SRI.S. CHANDRASHEKAR, S/O SIDDALINGAPPA, AGED MAJOR, R/O CHIMANGALA GRAMA, JANGAMAKOTE HOBLI, SIDDLAGHATTA TALUK. Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10316 WP No. 8859 of 2019 AMENDED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 02.12.2020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JAYALINGAYYA MUDENOORMATH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. B.J.SOMAYAJI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3; SRI.HARSHA D. JOSHI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO CONSIDER THE PETITIONER'S APPLICATION FOR THE POST OF BILL COLLECTOR ON THE BASIS OF HIS HIGHER QUALIFICATION, CASTE AGE AND MERIT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES AND THE ADVERTISEMENT AT ANNEXURE-A ALONG WITH OTHER LESSER MERITED CANDIDATES, AND TO SELECT HIM TO THE POST ON MERIT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned selection and the appointment of the respondent No.4 to the post of bill collector, which is approved by the respondent No.2 on 11.01.2019. 2. The respondent No.3 invited applications from eligible candidates for the post of bill collector. The qualification - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10316 WP No. 8859 of 2019 prescribed for the post was a pass in PUC and training in computers. The petitioner contends that he belongs to scheduled caste and had completed his Bachelors degree in Arts. He submitted an application for the post of bill collector. Likewise, the respondent No.4 also submitted his application for the post of bill collector. The respondent No.3 finalized the list of candidates which disclosed that the petitioner had secured 486 marks, while respondent No.4 had secured 316 marks in the qualifying examination. The respondent No.3 passed a resolution appointing the respondent No.4 as bill collector on the ground that respondent No.4 was residing within the limits of Panchayat. The petitioner therefore, submitted an application to respondent Nos.2 and 3 on 23.01.2019 seeking information as to why he was not selected. Respondent No.2 by its letter dated 30.01.2019, directed the respondent No.3 to hold an enquiry and submit a report. However, respondent No.3 did not take up any action. The petitioner is therefore, before this court challenging the appointment of the respondent No.4. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in the notification inviting applications, there was no prescription that the applicant residing within the limits of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10316 WP No. 8859 of 2019 Panchayat would be given preference. He contends that the petitioner had secured more marks in the qualifying examination and belongs to scheduled caste, while respondent No.4 had secured less marks and belonged to a forward community. He therefore, contends that the respondent No.3 must have selected the petitioner instead of respondent No.4. 4. The petition is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 who contends that the respondent No.4 was selected since he was residing within the limits of Panchayat and had computer knowledge. 5. The respondent No.4 has also filed statement of objections contending inter alia that he had better merit than the petitioner and he had experience of one year ten months working in Adhaar Section of the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Chikkaballapura, as an outsourced employee. He claimed that he had worked as a data entry operator, which tilted the balance in his favour as he had experience of working in a Government Department. He contends that he belonged to Category - 3B and the annual income of his family was Rs.11,000/-. He also contends that the respondent No.1 had - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10316 WP No. 8859 of 2019 issued a circular dated 17.11.2014 by which, it clarified its earlier notification dated 10.09.2014 and laid to rest the controversy regarding appointment of candidates to the post of bill collector. It is contended that in the clarification, the Government had held that preference should be given to persons who are residing in the Panchayat area. Therefore, it is contended that the respondent No.4 was validly appointed by the respondent No.3 as he was residing within the limits of Panchayat. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent No.4 reiterated the above contentions and contended that the appointment of respondent No.4 as a bill collector had some basis, in as much as respondent No.4 would be well-versed with the people living within Panchayat area and therefore, it would be easy for the collection of property tax. He therefore, contends that the impugned order of appointing the respondent No.4 is just and proper and does not warrant interference. 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10316 WP No. 8859 of 2019 respondent No.3 and the learned counsel for the respondent No.4. 8. The respondent No.3 had invited applications to the post of bill collector. It is apparent from the contentions urged by the petitioner as well as the contention urged by the respondent No.4 that the prescribed qualifications for the post of bill collector was a pass in PUC along with knowledge of computers. It is evident from Annexure - B that the petitioner had secured 486 marks, while respondent No.4 had secured 316 marks in the qualifying examination. A copy of the resolution dated 29.08.2018 passed by respondent No.3, which is placed on record by the learned counsel for respondent No.3 shows that the respondent No.4 was appointed on the ground that he was residing within the Panchayat area. This was not a condition mentioned in the recruitment notification and it was not held out to all the candidates that persons who are residing within the Panchayat area would be given preference. Therefore, the impugned order appointing the respondent No.4 being malafide and driven by other considerations, deserves to be set at naught so as to instill confidence in the recruitment process by the respondent No.3. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:10316 WP No. 8859 of 2019 9. Hence, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned selection and appointment notification dated 11.01.2019 (Annexure - F) appointing the respondent No.4 to the post of bill collector of the respondent No.3 is set aside. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to appoint the petitioner to the post of bill collector within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47