- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16906 WP No. 113612 of 2015 C/W WP No. 111238 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 113612 OF 2015 (S-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 111238 OF 2015 IN WP NO.113612/2015: BETWEEN: SRI. PRABHAKAR S/O. MALLIKARJUN MUNAVALI, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC:ASSITANT TEACHER, SHARANABASAVESHWARA HIGH SCHOOL, MENASAGI, TQ:RON, DIST:GADAG, R/O. NARAGUND, DIST:GADAG. &PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUHAS K. HOSAMANI, AND SRI. A. S. PATIL, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, (PRIMARY AND SECONDARY), VIKAS SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-01. 2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS DHARWAD, DIST:DHARWAD-580001. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF P UBLIC INSTRUCTIONS GADAG, DIST:GADAG-582101. 4. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER TQ:RON, DIST:GADAG-582209. 5. THE PRESIDENT Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16906 WP No. 113612 of 2015 C/W WP No. 111238 of 2015 SRI. PHALAHARESHWAR SHIKSHNA SAMITI, MANIHAL SUREBAN, TQ:RAMDURG DIST:BELAGAVI-591123. 6. THE HEAD MASTER SHARANABASAVESHWARA HIGH SCHOOL, MENASAGI, TQ:RON, DIST:GADAG-582209. 7. SRI.SHARANAPPA S/O. YALLAPPAGOUDA MULKIPATIL, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O:MENASAGI, TQ:RON, DIST:GADAG-582209. &RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP; SMT. BINDU GANACHARI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. V.M. SHEELVANT, ADVOCATE FOR R5 AND R6; SRI. P.G. CHIKKANARAGUND, ADVOCATE FOR R7) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR DIRECTION OR ORDER WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11.09.2015 IN R.P.NO.25/2013 (NO.ED147SOH 2013) PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN VIDE ANNEXURE-L. IN WP NO.111238/2015: BETWEEN: 1. THE PRESIDENT, SRI. PHALAHARA SHIVAYOGESHWARA SHIKSHANA SAMITHI, MANIHAL SUREBAN, TQ: RAMDURG, DIST: BELAGAVI. 2. THE HEAD MASTER, SRI. PHALAHARESHWAR SHIKSHNA SAMITI, SRI. SHARANABASAVESHWARA HIGH SCHOOL, POST MENASAGI, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG. &PETITIONERS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16906 WP No. 113612 of 2015 C/W WP No. 111238 of 2015 (BY SMT. BINDU GANACHARI ADVOCATE FOR SRI. V. M. SHEELVANT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY, AND DEPUTY SECRETARY, GOVT. OF KARNATAKA, EDUCATION DEPT., (PRIMARY AND SECONDARY) VIKAS SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-1. 2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,. DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,. GADAG, DIST: GADAG. 4. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG. 5. SRI. SHARANAPPAGOUDA S/O YALLAPPAGOUDA MULKIPATIL, AGED ABOUT: 46 YEARS, OCC: ASST. TEACHER, SHARANABASAVESHWARA HIGH SCHOOL, POST: MENASAGI, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG. &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P G CHIKKANARAGUND, ADVOCATE FOR C/R5; SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR DIRECTION OR ORDER WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11.09.2015 (NO.ED147SOH 2013) PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN R.P.NO.25/2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-Q. THESE WRIT PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16906 WP No. 113612 of 2015 C/W WP No. 111238 of 2015 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 11.09.2015 passed in Revision Petition No.25/2013 by the respondent No.1, whereby the appointment of the petitioner stands cancelled and the respondent No.7 is directed to be appointed. The companion petition is by the management supporting the cause of the present petitioner. 2. Heard the learned counsel Sri. Suhas K. Hosamani for Sri. A.S. Patil, learned HCGP Smt. Girija S. Hiremath, learned counsels Smt. Bindu Ganachari, Sri. V.M. Sheelvant and Sri. P.G. Chikkanaragund. 3. Facts in brief germane are as follows. The petitioner and the respondent No.7 apply to the post of Assistant Teacher pursuant to a notification issued by the respondent No.5 Samithi, an aided institution. Pursuant to the selection, a select list is notified in which the petitioner is selected and is also issued an appointment albeit on temporary basis on 16.11.2010. Thus the selection of the petitioner to the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16906 WP No. 113612 of 2015 C/W WP No. 111238 of 2015 said post was owing to his merit. The respondent No.7 calls that in question before this Court in Writ Petition No.60361/2011. The learned Single Judge rejects the petition filed by the respondent No.7 in terms of its order dated 02.07.2012. The respondent No.7 calls that in question before the Division Bench. The Division Bench affirms the order of the learned Single Judge. Thus ends the challenge of the respondent No.7 to the appointment of the petitioner before this Court. 4. The respondent No.7 having lost the case goes before the State, files a revision petition and secures the impugned order. The concerned Revisional Authority, ignoring the orders passed by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench, took upon himself to pass an order by which the appointment of the petitioner would get cancelled and the respondent No.7 would get appointed. The reason for the authority to have taken upon himself to do what was not done before this Court is based upon a circular which renders two marks of weightage to every completed year of service. The respondent No.7 is said to be working in the institute six years prior to the notification for appointment. Therefore, those 12 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16906 WP No. 113612 of 2015 C/W WP No. 111238 of 2015 marks are directed to be added and the appointment of the petitioner is annulled and the appointment of the respondent No.7 is directed to be placed. All these happen without making the petitioner, the selected candidate, a party to the proceedings. The petitioner therefore is before this Court. This Court has protected the interest of the petitioner by grant of an interim order which is in subsistence even today. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would reiterate the grounds urged in the petition which are narrated herein above to contend that the respondent No.7 having lost the case before this Court could not have gone before the authority on a new ground altogether and the authority entertaining the revision petition contrary to law. 6. The learned HCGP though would seek to defend the action of the respondent is not in a position to contend that the authority could have entertained the revision petition after the Division Bench passed the order. She would however leave the decision to the Court. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16906 WP No. 113612 of 2015 C/W WP No. 111238 of 2015 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for parties and have perused the material on record. 8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The link in the chain of events, are all in a matter of record. 9. The notification is issued on 02.10.2010 by the respondent No.5 seeking appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher. The petitioner and the respondent No.7 both apply. The petitioner is selected. The respondent No.7 is not. Respondent No.7 challenges the selection of the petitioner before this Court in Writ Petition No.60361/2011. The learned Single Judge rejects the petition by the following order. <2. Petitioner and the 8th respondent amongst responded to the notification inviting applications for filling up the post of Teacher in the General category in the 6th respondent Private Educational Institution, admitted to aid by the State. In the process of selection, the authorities having prepared a table of percentage of marks obtained both academic and in the interview (Annexure-R1 to the statement of objections) it revealed that the petitioner secured 64.05%, while the 8th respondent secured 77.18%, being more meritorious than the petitioner both in academics as well as the marks assigned at the interview. There being no dispute over the marks obtained in the qualifying examination and the marks assigned in the interview, it is needless to state that the petitioner was not selected since not meritorious - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16906 WP No. 113612 of 2015 C/W WP No. 111238 of 2015 than the 8th respondent. The challenge to the appointment of the 8th respondent by order dated 16.11.2010 is rejected. As a consequence, the relief of writ of mandamus to consider petitioner's representations Annexures-G, H, J, Kand E does not survive for consideration.= 10. The learned Single Judge observes that there being no dispute over the marks obtained in the qualifying examination and the marks assigned in the interview, it was needless to observe that the petitioner was not selected since he was not meritorious than the respondent No.8 (the petitioner in the subject petition). 11. The respondent No.7 in the subject petition calls that in question before the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.30754/2012. The Division Bench affirms the order of the learned Single Judge by the following order. <2. The learned Single Judge after considering the rival contentions has noticed in his order the respondent no. 8 was preferred to the appellant because of his merit having secured 77.18% of marks both in academic as well as in the interview, whereas the marks secured by the appellant is 64.05%. Therefore it is his name which was recommended. 3. The grievance of the appellant is, he has made representation for seeking appointment, which they have not considered. Therefore he submitted a writ has to be issued to the authorities to consider his representation. The learned Judge declined to entertain such a request - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16906 WP No. 113612 of 2015 C/W WP No. 111238 of 2015 rightly. It is a question of public employment. A person who seeks employment should apply as against a notification issued inviting applications and he should possess the requisite merit and the qualifications. Then only he can be selected for the said post. In the instant case, the institution has made a list of all the Teachers who are working in the institution and they have recommended the case of those persons who are more meritorious for being admitted to grant in aid. The appellant is Therefore less meritorious, his name is not mentioned. consideration of the representation filed by the appellant would not arise. The learned Single Judge was right in declining to entertain the writ petition. Hence there is no merit in the appeal. Appeal is dismissed. 4. In view of disposal of the appeal, application in I.A. Ne. 1/2012, filed for direction, does not survive for consideration. Accordingly the same is also dismissed.= 12. Thus ends the litigation of challenge by the respondent No.7 of the petitioner before this Court. The respondent No.7 then devises a new method of approaching the Revisional Authority on the strength of a particular circular which gives him weightage. Before the Revisional Authority does not make the selected candidate a party. 13. The Revisional Authority could not have entertained the revision petition on two reasons. One, that it would run counter to what the Division Bench and the learned Single Judge already held and the other, it would be in violation of principles of natural justice, as the selected candidate was not even made - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16906 WP No. 113612 of 2015 C/W WP No. 111238 of 2015 a party. Notwithstanding the same, the authority has ventured to undo what the Division Bench had done by the impugned order. The order reads as follows: CfðzÁgÀgÀ ¥ÀÄ£ÀjÃPÀëuÁ CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀÅgÀ¸ÀÌj¹zÉ. ªÀiÁ£Àå ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 23-12-2012gÀAzÀÄ ªÉÄîä£À« ¸ÀASÉå: 06/2012-13gÀ°è ºÉÆgÀr¹zÀ DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ C¥ÀgÀ DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ:23-03-2013AzÀÄ ªÉÄîä£À« ¸ÀASÉå 10/2012-13gÀ°è ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀ DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß JwÛ»rzÀÄ ºÉÆgÀr¹zÀ DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß gÀzÀÄÝUÉƽ¸À¯ÁVzÉ. ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ 01 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 02gÀªÀgÀ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ°è ¨sËvÀ «eÁÕ£À «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ FUÁUÀ¯Éà ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀĪÀ £ÉêÀÄPÁwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß gÀzÀÄÝUÉƽ¹, VPÀÛ ¸ÁÛ£ÀzÀ°è CfðzÁgÀjUÉ CªÀgÀÄ ¸À°è¹zÀ DgÀÄ ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À ¸ÉêÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀjUÀt¹, ¸ÉêÁ ºÉZÀѼÀªÀ£ÀÄß (¥Àæw ªÀµÀðzÀ ¸ÉêÉUÉ JgÀqÀÄ CAPÀUÀ¼ÀAvÉ) ¤ÃrzÀ°è £ÉêÀÄPÁwUÉ CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ CºÀð C¨sÀåyðAiÀiÁUÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ, ¸ÀzÀj ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ°è CfðzÁgÀgÀ £ÉêÀÄPÁwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß C£ÀĪÉÆÃzÀ£ÉUÉ ¸À°è¹ ¸ÉêÉAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀ®Ä CªÀPÁ±À ªÀiÁrPÉÆqÀĪÀAvÉ DzÉò¸À¯ÁVzÉ. ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C¢ü¸ÀÆZÀ£É ¸ÀASÉå: Er 23 ««zsÀ 2009, ¢£ÁAPÀ 15.05.2009 ºÁUÀÆ ¢£ÁAPÀ 22.05.2009gÀ DzÉñÀUÀ¼À°è ¥ÀævÁåAiÉÆÃf¹gÀĪÀ C¢üPÁgÀzÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ F DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÆgÀr¸À¯ÁVzÉ. ¢£ÁAPÀ:11-09-2015gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄÄPÀÛ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è WÉÆö¸À¯ÁVzÉ. 14. The order is on the strength of a particular circular that would give weightage to any teacher in a direct recruitment of two marks for every completed year of service. If that were to be the case, the respondent No.7 ought to have agitated the same before this Court or prior to the notification or before the Division Bench. Having not done so, adopting a circuitous method of approaching the authority and undoing an appointment which is stood confirmed by the Division Bench is - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16906 WP No. 113612 of 2015 C/W WP No. 111238 of 2015 contempt on the part of the authority to have so done by entertaining the revision petition. 15. The learned HCGP submits that the order is passed in the year 2015 and the person who had passed the order could have retired from service. Therefore, this Court is holding its hands to mulct the officer, who passed the order contrary to the Division Bench, but would admonish the State not to entertain such petitions which would undo the orders of this Court. If so done, the matter would be viewed very seriously. 16. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition deserves to succeed. The order impugned needs to be obliterated. 17. The companion petition which is in support of the present petition also would get the same relief as is granted in the subject petition. Accordingly, the following: ORDER i) The writ petitions are allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 11.09.2015 passed by the respondent No.1 stands quashed. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16906 WP No. 113612 of 2015 C/W WP No. 111238 of 2015 Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE Rsh / CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1