- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5261 WP No. 100588 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 100588 OF 2018 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SHRI. SHRIMANTH S/O NEMU BOGAR AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: KANNUR, TQ AND DIST: VIJAYAPURA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHANKAR S. BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 2. CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, DISTRICT COURT, BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA G. GAYATRI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AS PER ANNEXURE-K DATED 21.09.2017 AND LETTER OF INTIMATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 08.12.2017 IN NO.ADM/18037/2017 AS PER ANNEXURE-L AND ETC. Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5261 WP No. 100588 of 2018 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged an order dated 21.09.2017 passed by respondent No.1 and a communication dated 08.12.2017 addressed by respondent No.2 in terms of which, he was informed that his application for the post of Peon was rejected. The petitioner has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent No.1 to consider his case for the post of Peon as per his representation dated 04.09.2017. 2. (i) The respondent No.1 invited the applications from suitable candidates for the post of Peon. The petitioner, who belonged to Category - 2A applied as he was qualified for the said post. The respondent No.2 after verifying the qualification and other criteria, selected the petitioner for the post of Peon and thereafter, addressed a communication dated 12.10.2011 informing the petitioner to produce all the concerned documents for verification on 28.10.2011. The - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5261 WP No. 100588 of 2018 petitioner contends that his father was not well and therefore, he could not attend document verification on 28.10.2011. The father of the petitioner later died on 03.05.2013. The petitioner contends that due to the death of his father, he was not in a position to approach the respondents for reconsidering his case for verification of documents. In the meanwhile, a person aggrieved by the selection, had filed W.P.No.61276/2012 challenging the selection list dated 03.10.2011 relating to candidates selected in Category 2A and Scheduled Caste, where the petitioner was arrayed as one of the respondents. The said petition was thereafter dismissed as withdrawn on 12.07.2017. Another writ petition was filed in W.P.No.61275/2012 challenging the select list dated 03.10.2011, where the petitioner was arrayed as respondent No.2. The said writ petition was disposed off on 10.08.2017. (ii) In the meanwhile, the petitioner had submitted a representation on 27.08.2016 requesting the respondent No.1 to provide him an opportunity to produce his testimonials for verification. However, the said representation was rejected in terms of a letter dated 01.10.2016 addressed by the respondent No.2. The petitioner thereafter, submitted one more - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5261 WP No. 100588 of 2018 representation on 04.09.2017 to the respondent No.1 requesting him to appoint petitioner to the post of Peon. The respondent No.1 thereafter passed the impugned order rejecting the said representation, which was communicated to the petitioner by the respondent No.2 by a letter dated 08.12.2017. 3. The petitioner is therefore, before this Court challenging the aforesaid order as well as the communication. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that father of the petitioner was unwell and that the petitioner had to take care of his father and therefore, he could not appear for document verification. Therefore, the petitioner was prevented by sufficient cause in not appearing for document verification on 28.10.2011. He submits that the petitioner is now aged 46 years and therefore, he does not have any opportunity to seek public employment and therefore, prays that the case of the petitioner be considered sympathetically. He also contends that there were litigations pending regarding selection and this also prevented him from appearing before the respondent No.1 for verification of documents. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5261 WP No. 100588 of 2018 5. The writ petition is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents, who contended that the petitioner was required to appear for document verification on 28.10.2011. The petitioner did not even choose to communicate with the respondents seeking for a further date for verification of the document. Therefore, he contends that the respondents had no other option than to reject the request of the petitioner. He contends that the post is now no longer available and hence, no indulgence can be shown to the petitioner. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents. 7. It appears that the petitioner was directed by the respondent No.1 to produce all documents in original for verification of 28.10.2011. The petitioner though claimed that his father was suffering from paralysis from 16.07.2011, no documents are produced in that regard. This Court at the same time does not disbelieve the reason mentioned by the petitioner for not appearing on 28.10.2011 for document verification. The petitioner did not take any steps to appear before the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5261 WP No. 100588 of 2018 respondent No.1 even after his father died on 03.05.2013. However, he approached the respondent No.1 vide representation dated 27.08.2016 seeking for further opportunity to produce documents in original. By this time, the correctness of selection list was under consideration before this Court in W.P.No.61276/2012, which was withdrawn on 12.07.2017. It is not known whether the post of Peon reserved for Category 2A was filled up by operating the waiting list. As far as the respondent No.1 is concerned, there is no error in passing the impugned order, as the petitioner was not justified in making a claim after nearly five years. Therefore, the respondent No.1 was justified in not entertaining the request of the petitioner for document verification after nearly five years. 8. However, having regard to the fact that the petitioner is now aged 46 years and has no prospects of being employed in any public sector, if the post of Peon was not filled up or if there is any vacancy at present, it is appropriate to direct the respondent No.1 to consider the case of the petitioner sympathetically and if possible to provide an appointment to the petitioner in any Group - D post. It is needless to mention that if any appointment is given to the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5261 WP No. 100588 of 2018 petitioner pursuant to the direction of this Court, his date of entry into service shall be the date when such appointment is given. The above direction shall be considered by the respondent No.1 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order. 9. The writ petition stands disposed off on the above terms. Sd/- (R.NATARAJ) JUDGE PMR List No.: 19 Sl No.: 8