- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6405-DB WA No. 100491 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO.100491 OF 2023 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI SOMAPPA MALIYAPPA KALASAD AGE. 69 YEARS, OCC. NIL, R/O. FUMIGATION GUARD, KARNATAKA STATE, WARE HOUSING CORPORATION, BAGALKOT, DIST. BAGALKOT-587101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. ROHIT SHEELVANT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KARNATAKA STATE WARE HOUSING CORPORATION WITH ITS HEAD OFFICE AT NO.43, PRIMROSE ROAD, BANGALORE-560001, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE MANAGER KARNATAKA STATE WARE HOUSING CORPORATION, WITH ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT BAGALKOT, DIST. BAGALKOT-587101. 3. THE HEAD MASTER GOVERNMENT HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, NAGARALA, DIST. BAGALKOT-587101. 4. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER BILAGI, TQ. BAGALKOT-587101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S. BADAWADAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, AGA FOR R3 & R4) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 05/06/2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.813/2011 (S-RES), IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6405-DB WA No. 100491 of 2023 THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA) The present intra-Court appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, by the writ petitioner calling in question the order dated 5.6.2023 passed in WP No.813/2011, wherein the writ petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. The relevant facts are that the appellant/writ petitioner was appointed to the post of Peon-cum-Watchman- cum-Fumigation Guard with the respondent/Corporation1 and that the petitioner was placed on probation for a period of two years. Before declaration of petitioner’s probation, on the basis of the complaint received, respondent No.1/Corporation obtained report from the respondent No.4/BEO2 in respect of 7th Standard marks card that was submitted by the petitioner along with his application filed seeking appointment. It was 1 Karnataka State Warehousing Corporation 2 Block Education Officer - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6405-DB WA No. 100491 of 2023 reported that the original register of marks maintained by the School, in which the petitioner had studied was tampered and the marks scored by the petitioner in the examinations were altered and the marks were not countersigned by the School authorities/Head Master. Upon receipt of the report, respondent No.1/Corporation had issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner, which was replied. Being dissatisfied with the reply, respondent No.1/Corporation vide order dated 15.12.2010 (Annexure-J to the writ petition) discharged the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the writ petition was filed. 3. The learned Single Judge, upon consideration of the material, recorded a finding that the marks of the petitioner in the register maintained by the School have been altered. Noticing that the petitioner was a beneficiary to the said alteration and further noticing that the misrepresentation and fraud committed by the petitioner on the employer would not create any equity, dismissed the writ petition. 4. Heard the submissions of learned counsel Sri. Rohit Sheelavant for the appellant/writ petitioner, learned counsel Sri.Shivakumar S Badawadagi for the respondent - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6405-DB WA No. 100491 of 2023 No.1/Corporation as well as learned AGA for the respondent/State. 5. It is the primary contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the petitioner was not the custodian and had not maintained the school register, wherein it was noticed that the marks were tampered with and hence, writ petition ought not to have been dismissed. 6. The said contention is ex facie untenable and liable to be rejected having regard to the fact that the alteration having been noticed and the writ petitioner being the beneficiary of such alteration, learned Single Judge was justified in recording a finding that having regard to the nature of employment as well as other aspects, termination of service of the petitioner was justified. The learned Single Judge was further justified in holding that a person, who suppressed material information and/or gives false information cannot claim any right for appointment or continuity in service. 7. The alteration of the marks of the petitioner being evident from the material on record and the petitioner being - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6405-DB WA No. 100491 of 2023 the beneficiary of the said alteration, the question of favourably considering the appeal of the petitioner does not arise. 8. The learned Single Judge having adequately noticed the material on record was justified in noticing that the persons, like the petitioner, who have suppressed the material information are not entitled for appointment/continuity in service. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed as being devoid of merit. Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE JTR CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 4