- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8323 WP No. 5431 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO.5431 OF 2025 (S-RES) BETWEEN: KAMATHRAJ KANAKAGIRI C., S/O CHANDRACHARI A., AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/A GUMBALLI VILLAGE, YELANDUR TALUK, CHAMRAJNAGAR DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BOLA VEDVYAS SHENOY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. KARNATAKA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY SECRETARIAT THROUGH ITS SECRETARY P.B.NO.5074, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001. 3. VAMAN R N., S/O NARASHIVANNA, AGED MAJOR 4. LAKSHMAN B.C, S/O BHIMAPPA, AGED MAJOR 5. SAGAR A., S/O ASHWATHAPPA AGED MAJOR Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8323 WP No. 5431 of 2025 6. RADHIKA HANDRAL D/O CHANDRASHEKAR HANDRAL AGED MAJOR 7. JEEVAN C.N., S/O NAGARAJU AGED MAJOR, 8. PAVITHRA K.P., D/O PUTTARAJU K.C. AGED MAJOR 9. T.M. LOKESHWARAPPA, S/O MANJAPPA AGED MAJOR 10. MADHU S., S/O SHIVAMURTHY AGED MAJOR 11. MURALIDHAR J., S/O JAGANNATHA K N., AGED MAJOR 12. SURESHA S/O LAKSHMAN AGED MAJOR RESPONDENTS 3 TO 12 ARE WORKING AS JUNIOR ASSISTANT, C/O KARNATAKA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY SECRETARIAT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NAVEEN CHANDRASHEKAR, AGA FOR R1 & R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE FINAL SELECTION LIST (ANNEXURE-H) AND (ANNEXURE-J) FOR THE POST OF JUNIOR ASSISTANT RELEASED IN PURSUANCE OF NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.KA VI SA SA/A1/54/NE NE BH MA-1/2021 DATED 26- 04-2022 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ALL CONSEQUENTIAL APPOINTMENTS OF RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO 12 TO THE POST OF JUNIOR ASSISTANTS AND ALL OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL ACTIONS PURSUANT THERETO AND ETC., - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8323 WP No. 5431 of 2025 THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel Sri Bola Vedvyas Shenoy, for the petitioner and learned AGA, who has taken notice on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is before this Court questioning the selection and appointment of respondents No.3 to 12 under the Notification bearing No.Ka Vi Sa Sa/Aa-1/54/Ne Ne Bha Maa- 1/2021 dated 26.04.2022 (Annexure-A) and also prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to follow the procedure laid down under Section 2 of the Karnataka Civil Services [Procedure for selection of candidates during recruitment] Act, 2018 (for short '2018 Act'). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner applied for the post of Junior Assistant in pursuant to Annexure-A, Notification dated 26.04.2022, claiming reservation under Category 2A-Rural and Kannada medium. It is submitted that the petitioner has secured 57.5 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8323 WP No. 5431 of 2025 marks and on the basis of marks secured in the written examination, he submits that the petitioner was entitled for selection and appointment for the post of Junior Assistant. It is the case of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the candidates, who have secured marks lesser than the petitioner are selected and appointed as Junior Assistants. Learned counsel would further submit that while preparing selection list, respondents failed to follow the provisions of Section 2 of 2018 Act. Hence, he prays for quashing the entire selection and appointment notified under Annexure-A dated 26.04.2022 by allowing the writ petition. 4. Per contra, learned AGA would submit that the petition suffers from delay and latches and also refers to the decision of this Court in the case of Anushree A.S., vs. State of Karnataka and Others (W.P.No.34565/2024 [D.D. 09.01.2025]), the same selection process of junior Assistant in pursuant to Annexure-A dated 26.04.2022, which is dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. Learned AGA would further submit that the final selection list was published in the yea 2023 and the appointment has taken place thereafter. The petitioner is before this Court nearly after two - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8323 WP No. 5431 of 2025 years from the date of publication of the selection list. Further, he submits that short delay of a month or two in the matter of recruitment would be fatal. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. The petitioner was an aspirant of Junior Assistant in pursuant to Notification dated 26.04.2022. The provisional selection list of the said post was published on 15.02.2023 and thereafter, appointment has taken place. The petitioner is before this Court nearly two years thereafter. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P.S.Sadasivaswamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (1975) 1 SCC 152 has held that the shortest delay also would disentitle the petitioner to relief in service matters under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Relevant paragraph reads as follows: “……………………………………………………………………. A person aggrieved by an order of promoting a junior over his head should approach the Court at least within six months or at the most a year of such promotion: It is not that there is any period of limitation for the Courts to exercise their powers under Article 226 nor is it that there can never be a case where the Courts cannot interfere in a matter after the passage of a certain length of time. But it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for the Courts to refuse to - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8323 WP No. 5431 of 2025 exercise their extraordinary powers under Article 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the Court to put forward stale claims and try to unsettle settled matters. The petitioner’s petition should, therefore, have been dismissed in limine. Entertaining such petitions is a waste of time of the Court. It clogs the work of the Court and impeded the work of the Court in considering legitimate grievances as also its normal work. We consider that the High court was right in dismissing the appellant’s petition as well as the appeal.” 6. In the instant case, respondents No.3 to 12, selected candidates are appointed as Junior Assistants in pursuant to the provisional selection list dated 15.02.2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner's explanation that the information with regard to the publication of the selection list was not available and even petitioner filed application under the Right to Information, but no information was furnished. It is seen from the records that the petitioner applied seeking information with regard to the selection only by making application dated 20.11.2024, which was replied by communication dated 26.12.2024. Information sought for by the petitioner itself is after more than one and a half year and the respondents have immediately replied. The petitioner is - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8323 WP No. 5431 of 2025 not diligent and the petitioner has slept over his right. Appointed candidates are working for nearly two years and at this stage, entertaining writ petition would not be in the interest of justice. With the above, writ petition stands rejected. SD/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE AV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25