- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6322-DB WP No. 8835 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T WRIT PETITION NO. 8835 OF 2024 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: SRI. CHANDRANAIK S/O GOVINDA NAIK AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/O BEERANAHALLI MATTIGHATTA POST KADUR TALUK CHIKKAMANGALURU DISTRICT-577 548 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GOPALAKRISHNAMURTHY C, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT M.S.BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU DISTRICT-560 001 2. THE COMMISSIONER COLLEGIATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT SHESHADRI ROAD BENGALURU DISTRICT-560 001 3. THE KARNATAKA EXAMINATION AUTHORITY R/BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SAMPIGE RAOD, 18TH CROSS Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6322-DB WP No. 8835 of 2024 MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU DISTRICT-560 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. N.K. RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU IN APPLICATION No.33/2024 DATED 23.01.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-A CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION No.33/2024 FILED BY THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-B DATED 11.12.2023 IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6322-DB WP No. 8835 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR) This Writ Petition is directed against the order passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (in short `the Tribunal') in Application No.33/2024 dated 23.01.20204. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Gopalakrishnamurthy C so also Shri Vikas Rojipura, learned AGA for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Shri N.K.Ramesh, learned Advocate is on record for Respondent No.3. 3. The petitioner herein had approached the Tribunal in Application No.33/2024 with a prayer to set aside the Govt.Order dated 26.08.2020 and Endorsements dated 16.09.2023 (Annexures A14 and A23) in so far as petitioner is concerned and to direct the respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein to issue appointment order of Assistant Professor (Computer Science) in First Grade Government College and also sought for a direction to grant all consequential benefits. The Tribunal, after referring to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, rejected the application by order dated 23.01.2024 which is - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6322-DB WP No. 8835 of 2024 under challenge in this writ petition. The operative portion of which reads as under: "…In view of the discussions above, we are of the considered view that this Application is not tenable for consideration on merits due to Limitation applicable to the impugned order dated 26.08.2020 that is unsupported by any interlocutory Application for condonation of delay, lack of challenge to the Select list and non-joinder of person likely to be affected by the claim of the applicant for inclusion in the select list and deletion from the impugned select list and hence the Application is accordingly, dismissed." 4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 26.8.2024 vide Annexure-A14 by which claim of the petitioner for consideration of his candidature for the post of Assistant Professor in Government First Grade Colleges, has been rejected on the ground that he does not possess the requisite qualification for the post of Assistant Professor. In the aforesaid proceedings, an issue relating to limitation period had been considered stating that the challenge to the order is hit by Limitation even considering the relaxation in the Limitation Period from - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6322-DB WP No. 8835 of 2024 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on account of Covid Pandemic. The limitation in this case ends on 28.02.2023 while this Application has been filed on 03.01.2024 i.e. more than 10 months after the limitation period has been exhausted in this case after providing allowance for the relief granted by the Hon'ble Supreme court. It is observed in the impugned order of the Tribunal that no application for condonation of delay has been filed in this case in respect of the challenge to the impugned order dated 26.08.2020 and also there is no challenge to the final select list per se and no person who is affected by the claim of the applicant for selection has been arraigned as a party in the Application. 5. The order rendered by the Tribunal referred to the case of Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd., vs. K.Thangappa 1 and similarly referred the judgment in C.Jacob vs. Director of Geology and Mining2. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the above ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically stated in para.6 as under: 1 (2006) 4 SCC 322 2 (2008) 10 SCC 115 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6322-DB WP No. 8835 of 2024 "Thus, it is settled that mere consideration of representation on the directions of the Hon'ble High Court does not cure the Limitation involved in the consideration of the stale claim of the applicant as in this case. We reiterate that no Application for condonation of delay too has been filed in this case and on the contrary there is a declaration in the Application that the Application is filed within the Limitation prescribed under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals act, 1985 on the ground that he is challenging the endorsement dated 16.09.2023 without any reference to the prayer for quashing of the impugned order dated 26.08.2020 that is explicitly mentioned in para 1 of the Application - Particulars of the orders against which the Application is made and also para 6 of the Application - Relief sought, thus making the submission in para 2 of the Application to be blatantly incorrect both on facts and law. 6. Thus, the Tribunal rejected the application filed by the petitioner herein. In this writ petition, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the challenge was made before this Court to the endorsement dated 16.09.2023 wherein the request of the petitioner for the post of Assistant Professor has been rejected by observing that it covers the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:6322-DB WP No. 8835 of 2024 impugned order and the endorsement has been issued with regard to the directions of this Court in WP No.1840/2023 to consider the representation of the petitioner within an outer limit of eight weeks from the date of receipt of that order. The learned counsel for the petitioner by memo dated 12.02.2025 has produced the true copy of the Writ Petition in No.1840/2023. 7. The Tribunal, keeping in view of the aforesaid ratio after discussing relating to the materials on record, arrived at the conclusion that application is not tenable for consideration even on merits due to limitation applicable to the impugned order dated 28.6.2020 i.e. unsupported by interlocutory application for condonation of delay, lack of challenge to the select list and non-joinder of person/s likely to be affected by the claim of the applicant for inclusion in the select list and ultimately, dismissed the application. 8. Under this writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner urged various grounds and also sought for intervention of this Court contending that if this Court does not intervenes and sets aside the orders rendered by the Tribunal, - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:6322-DB WP No. 8835 of 2024 there shall be violation of Doctrine of "Audi Alteram Partem" i.e. "let the other party be heard." According to this principle, all parties to a dispute should be allowed to be heard and present their case. In other words, the principle asserts that no party should be condemned unheard. Each party has the right to a fair hearing in any dispute. The petitioner herein being the Graduate in Engineering (Computer Science) Post Graduate in Master of Technology (Digital Communication and Networking) should not be deprived of his right to employment merely on the ground of delay. Further the applicant, while availing the remedy before the Tribunal urged various grounds and also produced the impugned notification issued by respondent no.3 vide Annexure-A1 and several documents have been produced i.e. A to A23. The said documents were required to be considered by the Tribunal while rendering the impugned order but, only on the limitation point, the application has been dismissed without looking into all these materials. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urges that if this Court declines to intervene in this matter, - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:6322-DB WP No. 8835 of 2024 there shall be miscarriage of justice. Hence, he strenuously urges to set aside the impugned order. 10. The order sheet maintained in the aforesaid application i.e. OA 33/2023 dated 4.1.2024 states, "Heard the learned counsel for the applicant/s on the point of limitation in respect of prayer No.1. Reserved for orders on the point of limitation." and thereafter, the aforesaid impugned order has been rendered by the Tribunal without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to establish his case relating to the contentious stance taken in the aforesaid proceeding initiated keeping in view the provision of Section 19 of Karnataka State Tribunals Act, 1985. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner in this matter seeking for consideration of grounds in this writ petition and sought for setting aside the orders rendered by the Tribunal in the said application. 11. On the contrary, learned AGA submits that the opportunity has been given to the petitioner herein, applicant has initiated proceedings under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and the same has been indicated in the - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:6322-DB WP No. 8835 of 2024 order sheet maintained but, the application has been disposed of on merits by the Tribunal. The learned AGA also submits that the impugned order is also supported by the order sheet maintained by the Tribunal relating to disposal of the matter on limitation point. Therefore, no interference is called for in this writ petition. 12. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and equally the submission made by learned AGA. It is undisputed that, proceedings have been initiated by the petitioner under Sec.19 of the Tribunals Act and ended in the impugned order only on the limitation point. In view of the contentions raised by the petitioner and the application having been dismissed on the ground of limitation, if an opportunity is given to the petitioner to put forth his plea before the Tribunal by producing the relevant documents to address the issue between the applicant and the respondents, it would meet the ends of justice. In the event of petitioner approaching the Tribunal again, the Tribunal shall consider the application as well as the documents produced by him keeping in view of Doctrine of Audi Alteram Partem. Thus,, we deem it - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:6322-DB WP No. 8835 of 2024 appropriate to set aside impugned order rendered by the Tribunal considering the grounds urged in this writ petition. 13. In view of our above reasons and findings, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The Writ Petition filed under Art.226 of the Constitution of India is hereby allowed. ii) Consequently, the order passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal in Application No.33/2023 dated 23.1.2024 is hereby set aside. iii) Consequent upon setting aside of the orders rendered by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, matter is remitted back to the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal for giving an opportunity to the petitioner to produce the documents in support of his case and on hearing both parties, dispose of the matter in accordance with law. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:6322-DB WP No. 8835 of 2024 iv) However, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances, it is made clear that, all contentions are kept open. However the limitation point is concerned and also application filed under Section 19 of the Tribunals Act, 1985 are concerned, if the petitioner makes an application to consider the grounds of limitation, the same may be considered on merits in accordance with law. v) The period spent in disposal of this writ petition may also be considered while disposing of the application to be filed by the petitioner. Sd/- (K.SOMASHEKAR) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE Sk/- List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4