- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3247-DB WP No. 102533 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 102533 OF 2024 (S-KAT) BETWEEN: SRI JOSEPH Y. VIJAYAKUMAR A. S/O. AUNTONY, AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC. CONTRACT JOB, R/AT. NO.24, EX-SERVICEMAN COLONY, BELAGAVI CROSS, COWL BAZAR BELLARI, DIST: BELLARI-583102 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. B. S. SANGATI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001 2. THE DIRECTOR DIRECTOR OF HEALTH AND FAMILY, AROGYA SOUDHA, 6TH FLOOR, MAGADI ROAD, BANGALORE 560023 3. THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH AND FAMILY, AROGYA SOUDHA, 6TH FLOOR, MAGADI ROAD, BANGALORE -560023 Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3247-DB WP No. 102533 of 2024 4. SRI. PRADEEP KUMAR GROUP D EMPLOYEE, SL NO. 1173 IN A NO. 202993 THROUGH DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES, ANANDARAO CIRCLE, BANGALORE 560009, …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO, TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 6/9/2023 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI, IN APPLICATION NO.10845/2021 PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRILIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, COURT MADE THE ORDER THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3247-DB WP No. 102533 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) Petitioner has called in question the orders dated 6th September 2023 passed in Application No.10845/2021 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Belagavi (`KSAT’ for convenience) by filing this petition with a request to issue the following writ: “a. to issue writ in the nature of certiorari by quashing the impugned order dated 6.9.2023 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Belagavi in Application No.10845/2021 produced vide Annexure-A. b. to pass any other order, direction as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case.” 2. That petitioner filed the aforesaid application before the KSAT questioning the final selection list bearing No.SRC/91/2014-15 dated 17.11.2015 issued by respondent no.2 (Annexure-8) appended to the application for the post of group – D in case of petitioner and respondent no.4 stating that he, as an applicant applied for the post of group-D under Physically Handipped category along with other categories in terms of Annexure-A1 attached to the application and claimed - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3247-DB WP No. 102533 of 2024 reservation under 3-B/Hyderabad Karnataka/Kannada medium/PH in hearing impairment. It is stated that, he was called for verification of the documents such as SSLC marks card, caste eligibility certificate and disability certificate with regard to hearing impairment. He had scored 58.82% marks in his SSLC but, his name was not appearing in the provisional selection list. The respondent-2 published the final list on 17.11.2015 for the post of Group-D for Hyderabad-Karnataka Region, the said final selection list, respondent no.4 was selected. Being aggrieved by the final selection list, he submitted a representation to the second respondent on 26.9.2016 questioning his candidature for appointment of group-D post. He requested to reconsider his selection. As no reply was given, he filed W.P.No.105603/2016 challenging the act of respondent no.2 but, the said WP was dismissed by this Court on 2.2.2017 with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the KSAT. Thereafter, he filed the aforesaid application before the Tribunal but, the Tribunal has dismissed the application. Being aggrieved by the same, now the petitioner is before this Court questioning the impugned order passed by the KSAT. 3. The respondents appeared before the KSAT and filed the detailed objections so also rejoinder statements. The - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3247-DB WP No. 102533 of 2024 respondent no.2 justifies his action in the selection which is based upon the C & R Rules of recruitment. Respondent no.4 contended that, his selection was in accordance with the C & R Rules of recruitment. 4. It is argued by the counsel for petitioner Sri B.S. Sangati that though there is delay of 4 years 6 months in approaching the KSAT but, he has got a justified reasons. He submits that, the delay occurred due to wrong approaching the forum in between 2016 and 2017. He would submit that, he obtained the information regarding denial of his selection under the provisions of RTI Act from the respondents. During COVID – 19 period of pandemic, Apex Court had exempted and condoned the delay. Therefore, according to him, delay is bona fide. The Tribunal has not properly assessed material placed on record. He would submit that, petitioner though had secured qualified marks than respondent no.4, his candidature was wantonly denied by respondentno.2. He would submit that, as he is physically handicapped as per the certificate issued by the competent authority, his non-selection by respondent no.2 and affirmed by he KSAT is illegal and require interference by this - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3247-DB WP No. 102533 of 2024 Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. He craves to allow the writ petition. 5. As against this submission, learned Sri G.K.Hiregoudar, Principal Government Advocate justifies the action of respondent no.2 and he would submit that, the selection is based upon the merit and also is in consonance with the C & R rules. He would submit that, after publication of the provisional list, 15 days time was granted for submission of objections but, the petitioner did not submit. He would submit that, the petitioner did not submit the physical disability in the prescribed format as per the terms of notification, therefore, his candidate was not considered. He would submit that, there is no mala fide on the part of respondent-State and recruitment was done in a transparent manner. He prays to dismiss the petition. 6. We have given our anxious consideration to the submission of both the side. Perused the records. 7. Before adverting to the other aspects of the case, let us notice the admitted facts between both the side which are as under: - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3247-DB WP No. 102533 of 2024 i. On 20.3.2015 respondent issued notification to fill up vacant Group-D post in six districts coming under Hyderabad – Karnataka region. ii. On 22.4.2015, petitioner applied for the post for the Group-D post under category- 3B/HYK/KNS/PH/HG impaired. iii. On 8.10.2015 respondent no.2 published the provisional selection list for the said post and gave an opportunity to submit objections to the said provisional list i.e. for a period of 15 days. iv. Thereafter, on 17.11. 2015, respondent no.2 published final selection list of Group-D post. v. Then, the petitioner directly filed WP 105603/2016 before this Court challenging the impugned selection list which was dismissed on 2.2.2017 with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the KSAT. vi. Thereafter, he preferred Application No.10845/2021 before the KSAT after lapse of more than 4 years six months. vii. The KSAT dismissed the application of the petitioner on 6.9.2023. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3247-DB WP No. 102533 of 2024 8. These are the admitted facts which not be proved. The petitioner’s contention is that, respondent no.4 has scored 55.85% in SSLC and whereas, he has scored 58.82%. He has produced physical disability certificate when he was called to submit document verification. But, even then, respondent no.2 has not considered his candidature. It is the submission of the learned G. K. Hiregoudar, Principal Government Advocate that, the said physical disability certificate was not in the prescribed format as per the terms of the notification, therefore, his candidature was not considered. To this submission, there is no proper answer offered by the petitioner when such a submission was made by the learned Government Advocate. As per the documents produced, the petitioner has produced a certificate issued by AIISH, Mysuru and such a certificate was not from District medical disability board in the prescribed format which is stipulated in the notification. This fact of furnishing or submitting the said certificate in a prescribed format is not disputed by the petitioner. 9. When the recruitment process is in progress, the law is that, when provisional list is published in a case of present nature, the aspirant/appplicants have to submit their objections. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3247-DB WP No. 102533 of 2024 The final selection list was published on 17.11.2015 but, instead of approaching the KSAT, he directly approached this Court by filing the Writ Petition No.105603/2016 but, however, the said writ petition came to be dismissed on 2.2.2017 with liberty to approach the KSAT. Though the liberty was given to approach the KSAT, after lapse of 4 years 6 moths, he approached the KSAT by filing Application No.10845/2021 which was dismissed on 6.9.2023 which is impugned in this writ petition. That means, he had sufficient opportunity to raise the objection when the provisional list was published on 8.10.2015 within 15 days. He has not submitted any objections. As per the C & R rules, prescribed by respondent no.2, there is no provision for submitting any objections to the final list. That means, after lapse of more than five years, as rightly observed by KSAT, the petitioner cannot challenge the final list which has remained in existence for more than five years. 10. On perusal of records made available by the petitioner, the process of recruitment so conducted by respondent no.2 was fully transparent and by following all the provisions of C & R rules the final selection list was published. The petitioner has accepted the provisional list and never challenged the same. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3247-DB WP No. 102533 of 2024 11. In our view, in a recruitment process, a candidate cannot be permitted to approach for redressal, howsoever may be the genuiness of the grievance at any stage of time as there has to be a closure to the process of recruitment. As stated supra, the advertisement was issued on 20.03.2015. On 22.4.2015 petitioner submitted his application for the post of Group-D employee. On 8.10.2015 respondent no.2 published the provisional selection list for the said post. The petitioner has not submitted any objections and thereafter published the final list on 17.11.2015. Therefore, petitioner cannot be permitted to plead that he was directed to approach the KSAT and then, approach this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India if aggrieved by the orders of KSAT. Though an opportunity was given to him, he kept mum and remained indolent for more than 4 years six months and then filed the present application before the KSAT. This itself is a ground to non-suit the petitioner. The Tribunal has considered all these aspects especially in para.8 of the impugned order about the conduct of the petitioner. Therefore, it can be stated that, this slumberness of the petitioner and his conduct in approaching the KSAT at a belated stage clearly disentitles him from questioning the final selection list without challenging the - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3247-DB WP No. 102533 of 2024 provisional list by submitting his objections within fifteen days. Therefore, in our considered view, the KSAT did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the application filed by the petitioner (applicant). Therefore, there is no merit in this petition and is liable to be rejected. 12. Resultantly, we pass the following: ORDER Writ Petition is rejected. Costs made easy. SD/- (B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SD/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE Sk/- CT:VG LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 38