- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14929 WP No. 24492 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 24492 OF 2024 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. DEEPIKA P.R. W/O SRI. NARASIMHAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT "MAHALAKSHMI NILAYA" KODIGEHALLI CROSS, GABADI VILLAGE, BEJJAVALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, THIRTHAHALLI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NAGARAJ D., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATHRAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560001 2. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHAIRMAN OF SELECTION COMMITTEE OF GRAMAPANCHAYATH LIBRARY AND INFORMATION LIBRARY AND INFORMATION CENTRE SUPERVISOR SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT SHIVAMOGGA-577201 3. SMT. SUJATHA N., W/O SRI. CHETAN T.R. THUDURU VILLAGE, THUDURU POST THIRTHAHALLI TALUK, Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14929 WP No. 24492 of 2024 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.K.KENCHEGOWDA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. B.J.SOMAYAJI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2; SRI. NIKHIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SAMMITH S., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE SELECTION OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE POST OF SUPERVISOR OF THE GRAMA PANCHAYATH LIBRARY AND INFORMATION CENTRE, THUDURU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, THIRTHAHALLI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT, VIDE SELECTION COMMITTEE MEETING PROCEEDING DATED 24.07.2024 ANNEXURE-H HEADED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY 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 R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged the selection of the respondent No.3 as a Supervisor of the Grama Panchayath Library and Information Centre, Thuduru Gram Panchayath, Thirthahalli Taluk, Shivamogga District, vide proceeding of the Selection Committee dated 24.07.2024. 2. The petitioner contends that the respondent No.2 had issued a recruitment notification bearing No.G.PAM.SHI/GP/GRAM.ME.HU.NE/E-36849/2023-24 dated - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14929 WP No. 24492 of 2024 01.02.2024 inviting applications for 14 posts of Supervisors of Grama Panchayath Library and Information Centre in 14 Grama Panchayaths of different Taluks of Shivamogga District. In so far as Thuduru Grama Panchayath is concerned, the post of Supervisor was reserved for ex-servicemen in general category. It is contended that in the recruitment notification, it was specified that candidates applying for the post of Supervisor should be residents of the Grama Panchayath. However, it was also provided that if there were no candidates, then candidates residing in the adjoining Grama Panchayath within the Taluk are entitled to apply. The petitioner contends that the respondent No.2 while issuing the recruitment notification, had mentioned the operation of the vertical and horizontal reservation as ordered by the State Government vide order dated 08.03.2023. She contends that as per the aforesaid government order, if candidates in the horizontal reserved category were not available, then the vertical reservation shall be given effect to. She contends that she had secured 86.83% marks in the pre-university course and belonged to 2A category and had applied for the said post. However, she was not a resident of Thuduru Grama Panchayath. She contends that the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14929 WP No. 24492 of 2024 respondent No.3 though residing within the Thuduru Grama Panchayath was not an ex-serviceman but had secured 76.67%. The petitioner contends that in all, 17 candidates from Thuduru Grama Panchayath had applied for the post, while 24 candidates had applied from Thirthahalli Taluk. The petitioner contends that on 06.06.2024, the respondent No.2 had issued a provisional selection list for the 14 posts of Supervisors of Grama Panchayath Library and Information Centres. In so far as Thuduru Grama Panchayath is concerned, the respondent No.3 was selected provisionally. The respondent No.2 had invited objections, if any, to the provisional selection list. The petitioner submitted her objections on 21.06.2024 contending that the respondent No.2 was bound to fill up the candidates from the general category if there was no ex- serviceman candidate available in Thuduru Grama Panchayath. The petitioner contended that she had secured 86.83% marks and therefore, was more meritorious than the respondent No.3, who had secured 76.67% marks. Thus, it is contended that the respondent No.2 must have allowed candidates belonging to the general category to participate in the recruitment process without reference to the condition in the recruitment - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14929 WP No. 24492 of 2024 notification that the candidates should be residents within the Panchayath area. The petitioner contends that the Selection Committee held a meeting and without considering the objections of the petitioner, arbitrarily selected the respondent No.3 in violation of government order dated 08.03.2023. The petitioner is therefore before this Court, challenging the appointment of the respondent No.3. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as per the recruitment notification, the post of Supervisor at Thuduru Grama Panchayath was horizontally reserved for ex-servicemen and vertically for general candidates. He therefore contends that as per the government order dated 08.03.2023, if there were no ex-servicemen available, then any candidate belonging to the general merit was entitled to apply, even if such candidate was not residing in the said panchayath area. He therefore contends that between the petitioner and respondent No.3, the petitioner was better placed, as she had secured 86.83% than the respondent No.3, who had secured 76.67%. He contends that the reasoning adopted by the respondent No.2 in selecting the respondent No.3 that she was an ordinary resident of Thuduru Panchayath area, was - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:14929 WP No. 24492 of 2024 incorrect, as all candidates belonging to general merit were entitled to be considered for the post. In support of his contention he relied upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Anupal Singh and Ors. vs. State of UP and Ors. [(2020) 2 SCC 173] and Saurav Yadav and Ors. vs. State of UP and Ors. [(2021) 4 SCC 542]. He contends that if the selection of the respondent No.3 is set aside, then the petitioner who was the only one to file objections to the selection list, should be appointed as between the petitioner and respondent No.3, the petitioner was more meritorious. In support of his contentions he referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ashok @ Somanna Gowda and another vs. State of Karnataka [(1992) 1 SCC 28]. He contends that since the respondent No.3 is not entitled to be selected, she cannot remain in the post even for a single day. In support of this contention he relied upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hithendra Singh vs. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidhyapeeth and Ors. [(2014) 8 SCC 369]. 4. The writ petition is opposed by the respondent No.2 who has filed statement of objections contending inter alia that - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:14929 WP No. 24492 of 2024 the State Government had framed the Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayat Raj (Grama Panchayat Library Information Centre Supervisor Services) Rules, 2022. As per Rule 6 of the Rules, the candidates who applies for the post of Library Supervisor should be an ordinary resident of the concerned Grama Panchayath and residents of other Grama Panchayaths may be considered if the residents in the concerned Grama Panchayath are not available. It is contended that the post of Library Supervisor of Thuduru Grama Panchayath was meant for general merit candidates in the vertical reservation and for ex-serviceman in horizontal reservation. It is contended that as per paragraph No.9 of the government order dated 08.03.2023, if the post reserved for ex-serviceman in the horizontal reservation is not available, then that post is to be filled up from the candidates in the vertical reservation. It is contended that recruitment notification dated 01.02.2024 was issued to fill up the post of Library Supervisor in Thuduru Grama Panchayath. Out of the 41 candidates who had applied for the post, 17 candidates were residents of Thuduru Grama Panchayath and 24 candidates were non residents of Thuduru Grama Panchayath, but were - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:14929 WP No. 24492 of 2024 residents of different Grama Panchayaths in Thirthahalli Taluk. The respondent No.3 was one amongst the 17 applicants who were residents of Thuduru Grama Panchayath. They have contended that the petitioner was at serial No.4 in the list of candidates from different Grama Panchayaths. The respondent No.2 admits that the provisional selection list of candidates was published on 06.06.2024, and that the petitioner filed her objections to the provisional selection list but claimed that her objections were considered by the Selection Committee on 24.07.2024. 5. The respondent No.2 admitted that no ex- servicemen had applied to the post of Library Supervisor of Thuduru Grama Panchayath. Hence, general candidates who were residing within the Panchayath area had to be considered. Amongst the 17 candidates who were ordinary residents, the candidates at serial Nos.1 to 8 did not furnish certificate/s that they were residing in the Grama Panchayath and it was respondent No.3, who alone furnished documents and hence, she was selected. It is contended that the applications of the candidates who did not reside in the Thuduru Grama Panchayath were not considered, as residents of the Grama - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:14929 WP No. 24492 of 2024 Panchayath were available and were eligible to apply. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner was not entitled to be selected. 6. The respondent No.3 has also filed statement of objections contending that the respondent No.3 belongs to the scheduled caste and she had completed her second PUC by securing 76.67%, that she is also a resident of Thuduru Grama Panchayath and that she had applied to the post of Library Supervisor of Thuduru Grama Panchayath. She admits that if there were no candidates in the horizontal reserved category, then such posts had to be filled up amongst candidates in the vertical reservation, which in the present case was for the general category. She contends that since she was a resident of Thuduru Grama Panchayath and had secured 76.67% marks in the qualifying examination, the respondent No.2 had rightly selected her, as all the other candidates were from different Panchayaths. She has referred to Rule 6 of the Rules 2022, relating to the requirement of the residence within the Grama Panchayath, which is extracted below: - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:14929 WP No. 24492 of 2024 "6. ªÁ¸À¸ÀܼÀ: UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄw UÀæAxÁ®AiÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀiÁ» PÉÃAzÀæzÀ ªÉÄðéZÁgÀPÀ ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ Cfð ¸À°è¸ÀĪÀ C¨sÀåyðUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw ªÁå¦ÛAiÀÄ ¤ªÁ¹AiÀiÁVgÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ: ¥ÀgÀAvÀÄ, ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄwAiÀÄ ªÁå¦ÛAiÀÄ ¤ªÁ¹AiÀÄ ®¨sÀåvÉ E®èzÉ EzÀÝ°è DAiÀiÁ vÁ®ÆPÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄwAiÀÄ ªÁå¦ÛAiÀÄ°è£À ¨ÉÃgÉ UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄwAiÀÄ C¨sÀåyðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß DAiÉÄÌUÉ ¥ÀjUÀt¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ." 7. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as she is not a resident of Thuduru Grama Panchayath. Even otherwise, it is contended that the petitioner is not the most meritorious candidates amongst the 24 candidates from outside the Panchayath area and she was placed at serial No.4 in that list. It is contended that even if the writ petition is allowed, the petitioner would not stand a chance of being selected as there were more meritorious candidates than the petitioner. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 reiterated the above submission and submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to be selected in view of the aforesaid circumstances. The learned Additional Government Advocate supported the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:14929 WP No. 24492 of 2024 9. The recruitment notification dated 01.02.2024 for the post of Library Supervisor of Thuduru Grama Panchayath specified the vertical reservation for general merit and horizontal reservation as ex-serviceman. It also provided that the applicants should be residents of the Grama Panchayath area and the same is extracted below: "2) ªÁ¸À¸ÀܼÀ: UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄw UÀæAxÁ®AiÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀiÁ»w PÉÃAzÀæUÀ¼À ªÉÄðéZÁgÀPÀgÀ ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ Cfð ¸À°è¸ÀĪÀ C¨sÀåyðUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄw ªÁå¦ÛAiÀÄ ¤ªÁ¹AiÀiÁVgÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. ¥ÀgÀAvÀÄ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄw ªÁå¦ÛAiÀÄ ¤ªÁ¹ ®¨sÀåvÉ E®èzÉ EzÀÝ°è DAiÀiÁ vÁ®ÆPÀÄ ªÁå¦ÛAiÀÄ°è£À ºÀwÛgÀzÀ UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄwAiÀÄ C¨sÀåyðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß DAiÉÄÌUÉ ¥ÀjUÀt¸À¯ÁUÀĪÀÅzÀ. ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ¸ÀPÀëªÀÄ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀªÁzÀ vÀºÀ²Ã¯ÁÝgÀjAzÀ ªÁ¸À¸ÀܼÀ ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ ¸À°è¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ." 10. It is not in dispute that there was no ex-serviceman who had applied to the post of Library Supervisor at Thuduru Grama Panchayath. As per the government order dated 08.03.2023, if there were no applicants for the horizontal reservation then the post had to be filled from amongst those candidates who qualified for the vertical reservation. In the instant case, the vertical reservation was for general merit, - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:14929 WP No. 24492 of 2024 which meant that any candidate was entitled to apply regardless of the reserved category to which he or she belonged. To this extent, the contentions of the Learned counsel for the petitioner deserves acceptance. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Anupal Singh and Ors. vs. State of UP and Ors. [(2020) 2 SCC 173] has reiterated the above position of law. 11. However, it is to be noticed that Rule 6 referred above provides that in the event of non-availability of a reserved candidate, then any candidate residing in the adjoining Grama Panchayath of the Taluk could be considered. Therefore, the question whether the act of respondent No.2 in selecting respondent No.3 on the ground that he was residing in the Panchayath area violates Article 16 of the Constitution of India, arises for consideration of this Court. The second question would be whether the petitioner was entitled to be selected since she belonged to general merit and had secured higher marks than the respondent No.3. 12. The provisional selection list announced by the respondent No.2 shows that 17 candidates had applied and - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:14929 WP No. 24492 of 2024 were residents of Thuduru Grama Panchayath. Out of the 17 candidates, the respondent No.2 claimed that 08 candidates did not turn up to produce documents to establish that they are residents of Thuduru Grama Panchayath and the respondent No.3 was the 9th candidate in the order of merit. In so far as 24 candidates who had applied for the post and were not residents of Thuduru Grama Panchayath, the petitioner was at serial No.4 and there were 03 other candidates who were more meritorious than the petitioner. A comparative statement of the marks secured by the 04 candidates who were not residents of Thuduru Grama Panchayath is as follows: Sl. No. Name of the candidates Secured marks % 1 Nandini M V 557 92.83% 2 Shravya S 542 90.33% 3 Sudeepa B R 519 86.50% 4 Deepika P R 521 86.83% The 5th candidate/Umadevi, had a job oriented course, which is treated to be equivalent to PUC and she had secured 98.83%. 13. The petitioner filed objections against the selection of respondent No.3 on the ground that she belonged to general merit and had secured more marks and if the government - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:14929 WP No. 24492 of 2024 order dated 08.03.2023 was applied, then all persons belonging to general merit, including persons belonging to the reserve categories residing within the Taluk Panchayath were entitled to apply. She contends that the respondent No.2 did not consider her objections to the selection notification. Though the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 shows that the objections filed by the petitioner was taken up for consideration, but the respondent No.2 without objectively considering it, had passed the impugned order selecting the respondent No.3. Once an objection was filed by the petitioner, it was incumbent on the respondent No.2 to consider it and such consideration must be reflected in the order declaring the final list. Therefore, the impugned selection process by the respondent No.2 falls foul of the procedure prescribed by the recruitment notification itself. 14. As regards stipulating a place of residence as one of the criteria for selection, it is relevant to note that the libraries are established within the Panchayath limits and the purpose of stipulating residence within the Panchayath area as a criteria, is to ensure that the candidates selected devote their time, energy and render service. The contentions of the learned - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:14929 WP No. 24492 of 2024 counsel for the petitioner that this is violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India is not correct in view of the judgment of the Full Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pradeep Jain and Others vs. Union of India and Others, [AIR 1984 SC 1420]. Besides this, residence in the Panchayath is not the only criteria and there are other criterion such as educational qualification, age etc., Therefore, the claim of the petitioner that residence within a Panchayath area cannot be a criteria for selection is liable to be rejected. In so far as the reliefs to which the petitioner is entitled to, it is relevant to note that the petitioner was not the only candidate who was meritorious amongst the candidates from outside the Panchayath area. Even if the case of the petitioner is assumed to be correct for the sake of argument, then the petitioner would not stand a chance to be selected, as there were 03 more candidates above the petitioner who had secured more marks than the petitioner. 15. In that view of the matter, this writ petition deserves to be disposed off on the following terms: ORDER i. The writ petition is disposed off. - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:14929 WP No. 24492 of 2024 ii. The respondent No.2 shall reconsider the objections filed by the petitioner to the provisional select list in the light of the observations made hereinabove and pass appropriate orders after hearing the petitioner. This shall be complied within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order. Until then, the appointment of the respondent No.3 shall not be disturbed. iii. It is needless to mention that the appointment, if any, issued to the respondent No.3 shall be subject to the aforesaid exercise. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40