- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8083 WP No. 7190 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO. 7190 OF 2022 (S-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI HARISH KUMAR H P S/O PUTTE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/A HIRINDYAPPANAHALLI KODIHALLI HOBLI KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 119. 2. SRI VISHWANATH S/O VRUSHABENDRAYYA SASIMATH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/A GUDNEPPANAMATH POST KUKANOOR YELABURGA TALUK KOPPALA DISTRICT-583 232. 3. SRI HAMPANNA KOLAKAR S/O SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/A YARANALA POST BASAVANA BAGEWADI TALUK VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT-586 122 …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. SHILPA RANI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT REP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001. 2. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION 9TH FLOOR, VISHVESHWARAIAH TOWER DR AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. 3. KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8083 WP No. 7190 of 2022 REP BY ITS SECRETARY UDYOG SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. REUBEN JACOB, AAG A/W SRI. B.J. ESWARAPPA, AGA., FOR 1 & R2; SRI. K.M. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTTTUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 04.11.2021 ISSUED BY THE R2, TRUE COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-L. DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF PETITIONER DATED 30.08.2021 AND 27.09.2021 PRODUCED AS ANENXURE-K AND K1 SERIES RESPECTIVELY IN TERMS OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 06.02.2019 WHICH IS PLACED AT ANNEXURE-E. DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO ISSUE LETTER OF APPOINTMENT TO THE ELIGIBLE PETITIOENRS HAVE SECURED 25 PERCENT AND ABOVE IN TERMS OF THE FINAL SELECTION LIST DATED 16.09.2017 WHICH IS PLACED AT ANNEXURE-B TO THE POST OF EITHER WORK INSPECTOR OR MAY BE MERGED IN TO EQUIVALENT CADRE IN THE R2 DEPARTMENT AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, ON B-GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT ORAL ORDER The petitioners, aspirants for the post of Work Inspectors in pursuance to the Notification dated 06.04.2016 issued by respondent No.3, are before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the endorsement dated 04.11.2021 bewaring No.21857/DMA/ 195/CEST/2017-18/9801 (Annexure-L) and also praying to quash Annexure-J - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8083 WP No. 7190 of 2022 bearing No. £ÀCE 169 JAJ£ïE 2017 (¨sÁ-1) ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 05.01.2021, with further prayer to direct respondents to consider their representations and issue letter of appointment to the petitioners, who have scored 25% and above marks in terms of the Final Select List dated 16.09.2017. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioners being fully qualified and eligible for the post of Work Inspector, claiming reservation under 3A and 3B and Category-1 respectively applied for the said post in pursuance to notification dated 06.01.2016 (Annexure-A). Final Select List of the Work Inspectors was published on 16.09.2017. It is stated that on the same day verification of the original documents took place. In the meanwhile, some of the non-selected candidates approached this Court in W.P.No.3077/2019, W.P.No.45161/2017 and W.P.No.10217 of 2021 praying to quash the Notification dated 06.04.2016 and also in the connected Writ Petitions, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8083 WP No. 7190 of 2022 some candidates sought for a Writ of Mandamus to issue letter of appointment to the post of Work Inspectors. 3. A Coordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 19.08.2021, rejected all the Writ Petitions. In the meanwhile, it is the case of the petitioners that decision was taken to appoint candidates, who have scored more than 25% of marks under letter dated 06.02.2019 (Annexure-E). It is the grievance of the petitioners that though, there is a decision to appoint to the post of Work Inspectors, who have scored 25% marks and above, appointment orders are not being issued to the petitioners. The petitioners' request is rejected under an endorsement dated 4.10/11.2021 on the ground that this Court had dismissed the Writ petition. 4. The respondent-State Government took decision to abolish the post of Work Inspectors under Government Order dated 05.01.2021 (Annexure-J). The proposal for abolition was before the State Government on the proposal of the Director, which was forwarded in the year - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8083 WP No. 7190 of 2022 2016. Questioning the endorsement by which the petitioners request to issue appointment order was rejected and also questioning the Government Order (Annexure-J) dated 05.01.2021 abolishing the post of Work Inspectors, the petitioners are before this Court in this Writ Petition. 5. Heard Smt. Shilpa Rani, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Reuben Jacoba, learned Addl. Advocate General along with Sri B.J.Eshwarappa, AGA, for respondents No.1 and 2 and Sri. K.M. Prakash, learned counsel for respondent No.3. 6. Smt. Shilpa Rani, learned counsel, referring to Select List, would submit that, the petitioners have scored more than 25% of marks and in pursuance to Annexure-E- Communication dated 06.02.2019, the petitioners would be entitled for appointment as Work Inspectors, since the Government has taken decision to appoint Work Inspectors, who have scored more than 25% under Selection List of respondent No.3 published on - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8083 WP No. 7190 of 2022 16.09.2017. Learned counsel would submit that in W.P.No.3077/2019 and connected Writ Petitions, wherein State Government had filed statement of objections stating that steps would be taken to appoint candidates in the Select List, who have scored 25% for appointment as Work Inspectors. Having made said submission and having promised the petitioners, the State Government is not coming forward to issue appointment order and on the other hand, it has come forward to abolish the post of Work Inspectors under Annexure-J-Government Order dated 05.01.2021, which is wholly arbitrary and unreasonable. 7. Smt. Shilpa Rani, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of R.S. Mittal vs. Union of India1, to contend that the Appointing Authority cannot ignore the Select Panel or decline to make the appointment and when there is a vacancy, it can be offered to the petitioners keeping in 1 1995 Supp (2) SCC 230 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8083 WP No. 7190 of 2022 view their merit position. Thus, learned counsel would pray for a direction to appoint the petitioners as Work Inspectors in pursuance to Annexure-E dated 06.02.2019, decision taken to appoint selected candidates, who have scored more than 25% of marks. 8. Per contra,Sri. Reuben Jacoba, learned Addl. Advocate General along with Sri B.J.Eshwarappa, AGA, for respondents No.1 and 2, vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioners. Learned Additional Advocate General would submit that some of the selected candidates were before this Court in W.P.No.3077/2019 as well as W.P.No.10217/2021 praying for a direction to the respondents to issue letter of appointment to the post of Work Inspectors. But, the said prayer of the candidates is declined by this Court. Further learned AAG referring to the observations made in the order dated 19.08.2021 in W.P.No.3077/2019 and connected matters would submit that the decision taken to abolish the post of Work Inspectors is upheld and the petitioners would not get any right to seek appointment. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:8083 WP No. 7190 of 2022 9. Learned AAG further referring to the statement of objections filed on behalf of the State would submit that, the proposal for abolition was forwarded to the State Government in the year 2016 and it was in process. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the Government issued letter dated 07.09.2017 to stall the further proceedings of selection of Work Inspectors in pursuance to the Notification dated 06.04.2016. But, inspite of the said letter, respondent No.3 - Commission, proceeded to publish the Final Select List. Thus, learned AAG would submit that the petitioners would not get any right to seek appointment in pursuance to the Select List dated 16.09.2017 (Annexure-B), so also submitted that Writ Appeal filed against the said order of the learned Single Judge is affirmed. Thus, it is prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 10. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the Writ Petition papers, the only point which falls for consideration is, as to - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:8083 WP No. 7190 of 2022 Whether in the facts and circumstances, the petitioners would possess any right to seek appointment to the post of Work Inspectors?. 11. Under notification dated 06.04.2016 (Annexure- A), the third respondent invited applications to fill up various posts in the State Government including that of 167 posts of Work Inspectors. In pursuance to the said notification, the third respondent published select list on 16.09.2017. Petitioners’ name finds place in the final select list. W.P.No.45161/2017 was filed by non-selected candidates with a prayer to quash the notification dated 06.04.2016 insofar as inviting applications to fill up posts of Work Inspectors and also to quash the final select list published under notification dated 16.09.2017 of the Work Inspectors. 12. W.P.No.3077/2019 and W.P.No.10217/2021 was filed with a prayer to issue letters of appointment to each of the petitioners therein as Work Inspectors. This Court passed common order in all the above writ petitions dated 19.08.2021 dismissing all the writ petitions. The - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:8083 WP No. 7190 of 2022 observations of the learned Single Judge while dismissing the above writ petitions at paragraph 21 reads as follows: “21. For the aforesaid reasons, the petitioners in the first batch of writ petitions cannot turn around and challenge the selection process in which they participated with eyes wide open. The petitioners in the other batch of writ petitions do not have an indefeasible right to contend that they ought to be appointed pursuant to the final select list issued by the Commission. The State was well within its powers to abolish the posts that they do not need and I do not find any arbitrariness or action depicting absence of bona fides.” 13. A perusal of the order passed by the Co- ordinate Bench in the above writ petitions indicate that before publication of final select list on 16.09.2017, the State Government by letter dated 07.09.2017 requested the third respondent-KPSC to stall all further proceedings until further orders insofar as selection to the post of Work Inspectors are concerned. Despite the said Communication, third respondent proceeded to publish the final select list on 16.09.2017. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:8083 WP No. 7190 of 2022 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the State Government has taken a decision to select and appoint only those candidates who have scored more than 25% of the marks in the selection process to the post of Work Inspectors. Hence, they have acquired right since all te petitioners have secured more than 25% of the marks. The said contention was also dealt by the Co-ordinate Bench in the above stated order dated 19.08.2021 in W.P.No.3077/2019 and connected writ petitions and at paragraph 16, it has observed that the decision to select only those persons who have secured more than 25% of marks in the examination would not give any right to the petitioners to contend that they should be appointed. Moreover, the proposal to abolish the post of Work Inspectors was before the Government and when the State Government has taken a decision and issued Government Order dated 05.01.2021 to abolish the post of Work Inspectors, petitioners would not be entitled to seek appointment to the abolished posts. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:8083 WP No. 7190 of 2022 15. When some of the selected candidates approached this Court in W.P.No.3077/2019 and Connected matters with a prayer to issue appointment letters and when the said writ petition is dismissed, which is affirmed in the Writ Appeal also, petitioners would not get any right to seek identical relief in the present writ petition. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioners had placed reliance on the decision of R.S. Mittal (supra) to contend that denial of appointment to a candidate who is in panel of selected candidates where there is a vacancy would be unjustified. In the decision of R.S. Mittal (supra), there was vacancy which can be offered to the selected candidates. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also observed that there has to be a justifiable reason to appoint a person who is in the selected panel. In the instant case, the Government is justified in declining to make appointment to the petitioners since the posts are abolished under Government order dated 05.01.2021 (Annexure-J). - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:8083 WP No. 7190 of 2022 17. Admittedly, the select list published on 16.09.2017 is not operated at all. Mere publication of list and petitioner finding place in select list would not give the petitioners any indefeasible right to seek appointment. 18. For the reasons recorded above, there is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, writ petition stands rejected. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE PSG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44