- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13990 WP No. 12077 of 2021 C/W WP No. 1315 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 12077 OF 2021 (S-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 1315 OF 2022 (S-RES) IN WP No. 12077/2021 BETWEEN: SIDDAGANGAMMA S., D/O SIDDESH M., AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/A THOREOBENAHALLI VILLAGE, BYADARAHALLI POST, DHARMAPURA HOBLI, HIRIYURU TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY MISS ANANYA RAI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ 3RD GATE, 3RD FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING BANGALORE - 560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OFFICE OF THE ZILLA PANCHAYAT STADIUM ROAD, CHITRADURGA-577501. 3. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER OFFICE OF THE TALUK PANCHAYAT, MAIN ROAD, S.H.-19, HIRIYURU TALUK, CHITRADURGA - 572143 Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13990 WP No. 12077 of 2021 C/W WP No. 1315 of 2022 4. THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER BYADARAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, DHARMAPURA HOBLI, HIRIYUR TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT- 572143 5. VIJAYAKUMAR R S/O RAJANNA MAJOR IN AGE R/O DEVARAKOTTA VILLAGE HIRIYURU TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577546. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JAYALINGAYYA MUDENOOR MATH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. N. PRAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 4; SRI. H.V.MANJUNATHA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENTS PERTAINING TO ANNEXURE-A AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION DATED 19.06.2021 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-A SINCE THE SAME IS ARBITRARY AND ILLEGAL AND ETC. IN WP NO. 1315/2022: BETWEEN: SRI. VIJAY KUMAR R., S/O RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT DEVARUKOTTA VILLAGE, HIRIYURU TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-572143. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. H.V. MANJUNATHA, ADVOCATE) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13990 WP No. 12077 of 2021 C/W WP No. 1315 of 2022 AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ 3RD FLOOR, 3RD GATE M.S. BUILDING BANGALORE 560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OFFICE OF ZILLA PANCHAYATH CHITRADURGA DISTRICT CHITRADURGA-577501. 3. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER OFFICE OF TALUK PANCHAYATH HIRIYUR TALUK HIRIYURU-572143 CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 4. BYADARAHALLI GRAM PANCHAYATH BYADARAHALLI DHARMAPURA HOBLI, HIRIYURU TALUK-572143 CHITRADURGA DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JAYALINGAYYA MUDENOOR MATH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. N. PRAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE A COMMUNICATION DATED 19.06.2021 BEARING NO.Zi.Pam./A/2/GRAPAM.C/CR-18/2021 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT AND COMMUNICATION DATED 23.03.2021 BEARING - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13990 WP No. 12077 of 2021 C/W WP No. 1315 of 2022 NO.Ee.Taa.Pa.Gra.Pa. SIBBANDI, CR.70/2020-21 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND H AND ETC. THESE PETITIONS, 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 In W.P.No.12077/2021, the petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned communication dated 19.06.2021 issued by respondent No.2. She has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct respondent No.4 to consider her name for selection and appointment to the post of bill collector of Byadarahalli Gram Panchayat pursuant to the recruitment notification dated 26.08.2016. 2. In W.P.No.1315/2022, the petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned communication dated 19.06.2021 issued by respondent No.2 as well as the communication dated 23.03.2021 issued by respondent No.3. He has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to appoint him for the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13990 WP No. 12077 of 2021 C/W WP No. 1315 of 2022 post of bill collector as per the selection made in the general body meeting of the respondent No.4 held on 29.08.2019. Facts as stated in W.P.No.12077/2021 3. (i) The petitioner contends that Gram Panchayath, Byadarahalli, had issued a notification dated 26.08.2016 inviting applications from eligible candidates to the post of bill collector. The petitioner had applied for the said post. The respondent No.4 after scrutiny of the applications received, directed the petitioner to appear for verification of the original documents on 10.03.2017. The petitioner attended the meeting on 10.03.2017 and produced all the original certificates. The selection process was not finalized and therefore, the petitioner was forced to submit an application under Right to Information Act, 2005, seeking information from the respondent No.4 about the status of the selection process. The respondent No.4 furnished information on 29.08.2017 and 17.11.2018 stating that the selection to the post of bill collector could not be finalized since the meetings of the Panchayat were cancelled on four dates. Contemporaneously, the petitioner was informed that 25 applicants had submitted their - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13990 WP No. 12077 of 2021 C/W WP No. 1315 of 2022 applications for the said post and that the petitioner was the most meritorious amongst them. (ii) The petitioner contends that she submitted a representation requesting the respondent No.2 to direct respondent No.4 to issue an order of appointment since she was the most meritorious candidate. The respondent No.2 directed the respondent No.3 to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law. Thereafter, respondent No.3 directed respondent No.4 to consider the selection/appointment of the petitioner in accordance with law. It is contended that instead of appointing the petitioner and sending it for approval by the respondent No.2, after nearly three years, respondent No.4 sent the name of the respondent No.5 for approval. The respondent No.2 taking note of the fact that there was a long lapse of time in finalizing the recruitment process and that merit was not considered at the time of recruitment, directed the respondent Nos.3 and 4 to re-select candidates from amongst the applicants, who had submitted their applications pursuant to the recruitment notification dated 26.08.2016. Following this, the petitioner submitted another representation dated 04.01.2020 requesting the respondent No.3 to issue - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13990 WP No. 12077 of 2021 C/W WP No. 1315 of 2022 direction to the respondent No.4 to consider her case for appointment to the post of bill collector. The respondent No.3 in terms of an endorsement dated 08.01.2020 stated that respondent No.2 had directed respondent No.4 to initiate fresh selection process in accordance with law. The respondent No.3 in terms of a letter dated 23.03.2021, directed the respondent No.4 to complete the selection process as per the recruitment notification dated 26.08.2016. (iii) The petitioner then submitted one more representation dated 08.04.2021 requesting the respondent No.2 to direct respondent Nos.3 and 4 to consider her case for selection to the post of bill collector. In response to the said letter, the respondent No.2 directed the respondent No.4 to submit a detailed report along with necessary documents relating to the recruitment process of bill collector. Later, respondent No.4 on 03.05.2021, submitted a report and informed that it had received 25 applications for the said post of bill collector, out of which, the petitioner was the most meritorious candidate. However, it was contended that the members of the Panchayat at a meeting dated 29.08.2019, had selected respondent No.5 for the post of bill collector and sent - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:13990 WP No. 12077 of 2021 C/W WP No. 1315 of 2022 the proposal to respondent No.2 for approval. Besides this, it was stated that respondent No.5 was not a local candidate but was a resident of Abbinahole Gram Panchayat and therefore, requested the respondent No.2 to select the most meritorious candidate for the post of bill collector. The respondent No.2 without verifying the report submitted by the respondent No.4, directed the respondent No.4 to issue a fresh recruitment notification for selection to the post of bill collector in Byadarahalli Gram Panchayat. Therefore, being aggrieved by the non-selection of the petitioner, she has filed this writ petition seeking for the aforesaid reliefs. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 were always of the opinion that the selection should be from out of the candidates, who had applied in response to the recruitment notification dated 26.08.2016. She therefore, contends that the impugned action of the respondent No.2 in directing the respondent No.4 to start a fresh recruitment process, is illegal and arbitrary and warrants interference. She contends that the Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayat Raj (Staffing Pattern, Scale of Pay, - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:13990 WP No. 12077 of 2021 C/W WP No. 1315 of 2022 Method of Recruitment and other Conditions of Service of Employees of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 2020 (henceforth referred to as 'Rules, 2020'), which came into effect from 29.02.2020, cannot obliterate the earlier recruitment notification dated 26.08.2016. She contends that the respondent No.4 is bound to act upon the notification dated 26.08.2016 and therefore, prays that appropriate direction be issued to the respondent Nos.1 to 4 to select the petitioner to the post of bill collector. 5. (i) The writ petition is opposed by the respondent Nos.2 to 4, who contend that the petitioner has no cause of action to file a writ petition, as she was not a selected candidate and no provisional order was issued stating that the petitioner is one of the selected candidates. It is contended that the respondent No.4 had issued recruitment notification dated 26.08.2016 and one of the conditions prescribed was that preference should be given to local candidates. Accordingly, recruitment notification was published in the newspaper and in response to the said advertisement, 25 applications were received by the respondent No.4 for the post of bill collector. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:13990 WP No. 12077 of 2021 C/W WP No. 1315 of 2022 Thereafter, call letters were issued to the applicants to submit their documents for verification. Out of 25 candidates, 20 candidates appeared before the respondent No.4 and submitted their documents for verification. Out of 25 candidates, 15 candidates were locals belonging to Byadarahalli Gram Panchayat, while 10 candidates hailed from surrounding Gram Panchayats. (ii) It is contended that Byadarahalli Gram Panchayat conducted five meetings and no consensus was arrived at in the matter of selection of candidate to the post of bill collector and therefore, the subject was postponed from time to time. Later on 29.08.2019, Byadarahalli Gram Panchayat conducted an ordinary meeting and selected respondent No.5 though he was not a local candidate and belonged to Abbinahole Gram Panchayat and had scored lesser marks in the qualifying examination. After the respondent No.5 was selected, proposals were sent to respondent No.3 for consideration on 06.09.2019 and respondent No.3 in turn forwarded it to the respondent No.2 on 12.09.2019. The petitioner objected against the selection of the respondent No.5. The respondent - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:13990 WP No. 12077 of 2021 C/W WP No. 1315 of 2022 No.2 after considering the proposals of the respondent No.3 and noticing the objections of the petitioner, ordered for conducting a selection afresh from amongst candidates, who had applied against the notification dated 26.08.2016. Therefore, it is contended that even the respondent No.5 was not selected and hence, the petitioner cannot have any grievances over the selection of respondent No.5. It is contended that a new body was elected, which assumed office at Byadarahalli Gram Panchayat. The Byadarahalli Gram Panchayat thereafter, addressed a letter dated 09.04.2021 seeking guidance in the matter of selection to the post of bill collector. The respondent No.2 in turn called for detailed report of the respondent No.4, which was submitted on 03.05.2021. On considering the report of respondent No.4, since five years had passed after the recruitment notification was issued and the State Government had by then published "Cadre and Recruitment Rules" for filling up various posts in Gram Panchayats, directed respondent No.3 to submit proposals after issuing fresh notification following the due procedure prescribed under the Cadre and Recruitment Rules. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner cannot stall the process of - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:13990 WP No. 12077 of 2021 C/W WP No. 1315 of 2022 recruitment under Rules, 2020 on the premise that she was the most meritorious candidate pursuant to the recruitment notification dated 26.08.2016. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 reiterated the above contentions and submitted that the petitioner has no locus standi to compel the respondents to appoint her. 7. The learned counsel for respondent No.5 submitted that the respondent No.5 possessed a job oriented course, which was equivalent to PUC as per the notification issued by the State Government. He therefore, contends that the respondent No.5 was qualified to be appointed to the post of bill collector. Hence, he contends that the impugned procedure of the respondent Nos.2 to 4 to conduct a selection afresh, is arbitrary and warrants interference. 8. The learned Additional Government Advocate representing the respondent No.1 submitted that in view of framing of the Rules, 2020, the recruitment has to be done in accordance with the Rules, 2020 and hence, orders passed by - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:13990 WP No. 12077 of 2021 C/W WP No. 1315 of 2022 the respondent Nos.2 to 4 are just and proper and do not warrant any interference in this writ petition. Facts as pleaded in W.P.No.1315/2022: 9. The petitioner contends that he applied for the post of bill collector in response to a notification dated 08.09.2016. He was thereafter called for documents verification on 10.03.2017. He contends that respondent No.4 issued another publication on 12.02.2017 for the post of bill collector. The respondent No.4 thereafter considered all the applications and selected the petitioner at the meeting held on 29.08.2019. The respondent No.4 forwarded the resolution appointing petitioner as bill collector to respondent No.3 on 06.09.2019 and requested it to approve it. The respondent No.3 forwarded it to respondent No.2 for approval. However, candidates who were not selected filed objections before respondent Nos.2 and 3 objecting against approving the appointment of petitioner. The respondent No.4 addressed a letter dated 15.03.2021 to respondent No.3 for approval of its resolution and in response, the respondent No.3 informed respondent No.4 on 23.03.2021 that respondent No.2 had instructed it to redo the selection as - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:13990 WP No. 12077 of 2021 C/W WP No. 1315 of 2022 three years had elapsed. A similar communication was addressed by respondent No.2 to respondent No.4 on 19.06.2021. Being aggrieved by the letter dated 19.06.2021, the petitioner is before this Court. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that when respondent No.4 had selected him, the respondent No.2 ought to have taken steps to approve the appointment. He contends that respondent No.2 could not have directed a fresh recruitment process to be undertaken. 11. The writ petition is opposed by the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4, who contends that the selection of petitioner was ex-facie bad as he was not the meritorious candidate and was not a localite. Besides this, he contends that the petitioner has no right to compel the respondent No.2 to approve his appointment as the Cadre and Recruitment Rules have come into effect in the year 2020. Therefore, he contends that selection of petitioner was not in accordance with law and hence, respondent No.2 was justified in directing respondent No.4 to undertake a fresh recruitment process. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:13990 WP No. 12077 of 2021 C/W WP No. 1315 of 2022 12. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner in both the petitions as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 and learned counsel for respondent No.5 in W.P.No.12077/2021. 13. The documents placed on record would indicate that the petitioner in W.P.No.12077/2021 was the most meritorious candidate, who had applied for the post of bill collector pursuant to the recruitment notification dated 26.08.2016. It appears that respondent No.4 had issued call letters and called upon the candidates to appear for document verification and accordingly, the petitioner had appeared for verification of the documents. The records produced along with the writ petition do indicate that even in contemplation of the respondent No.4, the petitioner in W.P.No.12077/2021 was the most meritorious candidate and in the ordinary course, she was entitled to be selected. However, respondent No.4 did not finalise the selection process by notifying the provisional select list and did not take any steps in that regard. Contrarily, respondent No.4 arbitrarily selected respondent No.5 in W.P.No.12077/2021 and petitioner in W.P.No.1315/2022 though he was not a resident - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:13990 WP No. 12077 of 2021 C/W WP No. 1315 of 2022 of the same village and he had secured lesser marks than the petitioner in W.P.No.12077/2021. This appointment of the respondent No.5 in W.P.No.12077/2021 was not approved by respondent No.2 meaning thereby that the selection process was not final. In the meanwhile, the State Government framed the Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayat Raj (Staffing Pattern, Scale of Pay, Method of Recruitment and other Conditions of service of Employees of Gram Panchayat) Rules, 2020, which provides for method of recruitment, constitution of selection committee, method of selection, condition of service etc., The Selection Committee comprises of Chief Executive Officer of the concerned Zilla Panchayat, Deputy Director of Social Welfare Department, District Backward Classes Welfare Officer, District Minority Welfare Officer, Deputy Director of Women and Child Welfare Department and Deputy Secretary of the concerned Zilla Panchayat, who was the Member Secretary of the Committee. Therefore, selection had to be done in accordance with the Rules, 2020. It is in this context, that the respondent No.2 had issued an advisory to the respondent No.4 to issue fresh recruitment notification to recruit candidates in accordance with the Rules, 2020. The petitioner, who was the - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:13990 WP No. 12077 of 2021 C/W WP No. 1315 of 2022 most meritorious candidate, is not entitled to compel the respondent Nos.1 to 4 to select her, as the respondent Nos.1 to 4 being the employers, are entitled to withdraw any notification or abandon any recruitment notification. Even if the petitioner was selected, that did not confer upon her any indefeasible right to be appointed. Therefore, the petitioner cannot compel the respondent Nos.1 to 4 to appoint her for the post of bill collector. In this regard, it is appropriate to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar Kashyap and others vs. South East Central Railway and others [AIR 2019 SC 24] as well as the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shankarsan Dash vs. Union of India [AIR 1991 SC 1612]. In that view of the matter, no reliefs can be granted to the petitioner to direct the respondent Nos.1 to 4 to appoint her to the post of bill collector. 14. Consequently, W.P.No.12077/2021 lacks merit and is dismissed. In view of the order passed in W.P.No.12077/2021, W.P.No.1315/2021 also stands dismissed. - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:13990 WP No. 12077 of 2021 C/W WP No. 1315 of 2022 15. In view of the fact that the respondent No.4 has not taken any steps from the year 2016 till date, to appoint a suitable candidate to the post of bill collector, it is appropriate to direct respondent No.4 to take out necessary steps for recruitment to the post of bill collector, which shall at any rate be done within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order. Until the aforesaid exercise is conducted, the respondent No.4 shall not under any circumstances, appoint any person to the post of bill collector even on temporary basis/daily wages/contractual basis etc., Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33