- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2410 WP No. 7662 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO. 7662 OF 2020 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. B S RAVIKUMARA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS S/O SRI B N SHIVANNEGOWDA WORKING AS STENOGRAPHER COURT OF I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT RAMANAGARA COURT COMPLEX RAMANAGARA-562159 RAMANAGARA DISTRICT. R/A C/O SOWBHAGYAMMA NO.1404, 2ND CROSS VIDYANAGARA GILLA PANCHAYATH OFFICE OPPOSITE NEAR ANNAMMA TEMPLE B M ROAD RAMANAGARA-562159. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHILADITYA MISHRA, ADV. FOR SRI VIVEK R., ADV.) AND: 1. THE SECRETARY KARNATAKA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560001. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2410 WP No. 7662 of 2020 DEPARTMENT OF PERSONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS (DPAR) VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560001. 3. SMT. D S PADMASHREE WORKING AS ENGLISH REPORTER KARNATAKA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560001. R/AT LAKSHMI NILAYA 1ST FLOOR, MANGALA CONVENT ROAD VIDYANAGARA HASSAN-573202. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVAPRABHU HIREMATH, AGA FOR R1 & R2 SRI SATHISHA D.J., ADV. FOR R3) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE OM DATED 28.02.2018 (ANNEXURE-Q) OF THE R-1 IN SO FAR AS SELECTING THE R-3 TO THE POST OF ENGLISH REPORTER IS CONCERNED; CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS PARTICULARLY THE R-1 TO SELECT THE PETITIONER TO THE POST OF ENGLISH REPORTER WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS FROM THE DATE R-3 WAS SELECTED TOT HE SAID POST AS AT ANNEXURE-Q AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2410 WP No. 7662 of 2020 ORAL ORDER Petitioner, an unsuccessful candidate to the post of Reporter (English) in the first respondent – Karnataka Legislative Assembly is before this Court questioning Annexure-Q, O.M., dated 28.02.2018 appointing third respondent as Reporter (English) and for consequential direction to select the petitioner to the post of Reporter (English) with all consequential benefits. 2. Heard learned counsel Sri.Shiladitya Mishra for Sri.Vivek.R., learned counsel for petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.Shivaprabhu Hiremath, for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned counsel Sri.Sathisha.D.J., for respondent No.3. Perused the writ petition papers. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in pursuance to the notification inviting application to fill up the post of Reporter (English) in the first respondent – Secretariat, petitioner submitted his application for the post of Reporter (English). Considering his application, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2410 WP No. 7662 of 2020 first respondent by letter dated 24.01.2018 (Annexure-K) directed the petitioner to attend interview on 31.01.2018 at 10.00 a.m., along with original documents stated therein. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that on the said date, petitioner attended the interview before the first respondent and he submits that wrongly first respondent has shown that the petitioner has remained absent to the interview. Learned counsel would submit that the request of the petitioner to submit the details of the candidates who attended the interview on 31.01.2018 and the marks sheet of the candidates who appeared for the interview has not been furnished. It is also submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the persons who were not attended the interview on 31.01.2018 like one Sri.Munikrishna were called for interview subsequently and they were considered for selection. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner also ought to have been given one more opportunity to attend the interview. Thus, learned counsel would pray for allowing the writ petition. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2410 WP No. 7662 of 2020 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner by submitting that the petitioner failed to attend the interview on 31.01.2018 and having failed to attend the interview, petitioner cannot contend that the respondents have shown him as absent. Learned counsel would submit that no material whatsoever is placed on record to establish that the petitioner had attended the interview on the said date. Learned counsel for respondents would invite attention of this Court to Annexure-X dated 11.02.2019, wherein the petitioner was informed that the petitioner has remained absent in the interview held on 31.01.2018. Thus, learned counsel prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, the only point which falls for consideration is as to, Whether the petitioner would be entitled for the relief sought in the writ petition? - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:2410 WP No. 7662 of 2020 6. Answer to the above point would be in the Negative for the following reasons: 7. There is no dispute with regard to petitioner applying for the post of Reporter (English) in pursuance to the notification dated 24.11.2017 calling applications to fill up various posts. Petitioner in terms of letter dated 24.01.2018 (Annexure-K) of the first respondent was called for interview on 31.01.2018 along with original documents. Annexure-R3, proceedings of the interview dated 31.01.2018 to the post of Reporter (English) indicates that the petitioner remained absent for the transcription examination as well as viva-voce. The petitioner has not placed any piece of document to substantiate his contention that he attended the interview on 31.01.2018. In the absence of any document in support of the petitioner’s contention that he attended the interview on 31.01.2018, merely on the submission of the petitioner, same cannot be believed or could be accepted, - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:2410 WP No. 7662 of 2020 when the respondent No.1 has placed on record the proceedings of the interview dated 31.01.2018. 8. In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly writ petition stands rejected. SD/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE NC CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44