- 1 - WA No.100441 of 2023 c/w WA No.100496 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 29TH 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.100441 OF 2023 (S RES) C/W WRIT APPEAL NO.100496 OF 2023 (S RES) IN WA NO.100441 OF 2023: BETWEEN SMT. PRAMILA BHAGAVANTH GASTE, AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. R/O. ATHANI, ATHANI TALUK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591304. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAYA S. HALLIKERI, ADVOCATE) AND 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001. 2 . APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001. 3 . THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (PRE-UNIVERSITY), BENGALURU, 18TH CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-580012. YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - WA No.100441 of 2023 c/w WA No.100496 of 2023 4 . THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (PRE-UNIVERSITY), CHIKKODI EDUCATION DISTRICT, CHIKKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591201. 5 . KARNATAKA RURAL EDUCATION SOCIETY, ANINAPPUR, TQ. KAGWAD, DIST. BELAGAVI-591303. BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 6 . PRINCIPAL, KARNATAKA RURAL EDUCATION SOCIETY'S COMPOSITE JUNIOR COLLEGE, TQ. ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591303. 7 . MURALIDHAR PANDURANG KAMBLE AGE. 35 YEARS, R/O. AT POST. KURLI, TQ. NIPPANI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591241. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. VISHWANATH B. SULTANPURI, ADVOCATE FOR R5 & R6; SRI. J.S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R7) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 07.06.2023 IN 100293/2022 AND DISMISS THE W.P.NO.100293, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. IN WA NO.100496 OF 2023: BETWEEN SMT. PRAMILA BHAGAVANTH GASTE AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. R/O ATHANI TALUK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591304. ...APPELLANT - 3 - WA No.100441 of 2023 c/w WA No.100496 of 2023 (BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAYA S. HALLIKERI, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (PRE-UNIVERSITY), BENGALURU, 18TH CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU 580012. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (PRE-UNIVERSITY), CHIKKODI EDUCATION DISTRICT, CHIKKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI 591201. 3. KARNATAKA RURAL EDUCATION SOCIETY AINAPPUR, TQ. KAGWAD, DIST. BELAGAVI 591303, BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 4. PRINCIPAL KARNATAKA RURAL EDUCATION SOCIETY'S COMPOSITE JUNIOR COLLEGE, TQ. ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI 591303. 5. MURALIDHAR PANDURANG KAMBLE AGE. 35 YEARS, R/O. AT. POST. KURLI, TQ. NIPPANI, DIST. BELAGAVI 591241. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. VISHWANATH B. SULTANPURI, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4; SRI. J.S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R5) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 7.06.2023 IN WP NO.115599/2019 AND DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION IN WP NO.115599/2019, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY & ETC. THESE WRIT APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 22.04.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, S.G. PANDIT, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: - 4 - WA No.100441 of 2023 c/w WA No.100496 of 2023 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA CAV JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT) The above two appeals are filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 questioning the common order dated 07.06.2023 passed in W.P. No.115599/2019 as well as W.P. No.100293/2022, by which the petitioner’s writ petitions are allowed quashing the appointment of appellant, the approval of appointment and confirmation of such approval in Revision Petition No.228/2020; and further directing respondents No.5 and 6 (in W.P. No.100293/2022) to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of English Teacher in respondent No.6-institution. 2. The parties to these appeals would be referred to as they stood before the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.100293/2022. The appellant was respondent No.7, and respondent No.7 herein was the petitioner before the learned Single Judge. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed W.P. No.115599/2019 challenging the list dated 20.03.2018 which rejected the candidature of the petitioner for the post - 5 - WA No.100441 of 2023 c/w WA No.100496 of 2023 of English Teacher and also the communication dated 06.08.2018 whereby respondent No.4 recommended approval of selection of respondent No.7. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the petitioner had availed remedy of revision under Section 131 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, in Revision Petition No.228/2020 before respondent No.2-Appellate Authority. The said revision petition was dismissed by order dated 02.12.2021 and the said order was the subject matter of W.P. No.100293/2022. 4. The petitioner as well as respondent No.7 applied for the post of English Teacher in pursuance of the Notification/Advertisement dated 04.02.2018 issued by respondent No.5-Society. The post of English Teacher was reserved for the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Caste and the appointment was to fill up the backlog vacancy. The minimum qualification prescribed for the said post was a Degree in M.A., B.Ed., with 55% of marks. The petitioner had secured 65.70% marks in the qualifying examination, whereas respondent No.7 had secured 62.05% in the qualifying examination. When respondent No.5 published the select list, respondent No.7 was selected and the petitioner’s name appeared in the rejection list on the ground that the - 6 - WA No.100441 of 2023 c/w WA No.100496 of 2023 petitioner had not taken Kannada language as one of the main language in 10th Standard and he had not studied 10th standard in Kannada Medium. Respondent No.5, on selection of respondent No.7 for the post of English Teacher, forwarded the appointment of respondent No.7 and the same was approved by the competent authority on 26.03.2018. The said order of appointment as well as approval of the appellant was the subject matter of revision petition in Revision Petition No.228/2020 filed under Section 131 of the Education Act and the said revision petition came to be dismissed by respondent No.2-Appellate Authority vide order dated 02.12.2021. 5. The learned Single Judge having heard the learned counsel for the parties, under the impugned common order, dated 07.06.2023, quashed the order of appointment dated 26.03.2018 (Annexure-V) issued to respondent No.7, the order of approval dated 31.08.2019 and as also the revisional order dated 02.12.2021 passed in Revision Petition No.228/2020. The learned Single Judge further directed respondents No.5 and 6 to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of English Teacher. - 7 - WA No.100441 of 2023 c/w WA No.100496 of 2023 6. Heard Sri. Mrutyunjay S.Hallikeri, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/respondent No.7, Sri. V.S.Kalasurmath, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State, Sri. J.S.Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri. Vishwanath B.Sultanpuri, learned counsel for the respondent-Karnataka Rural Education Society. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 7. Sri. Mrutyunjaya S.Hallikeri, learned counsel for appellant/respondent No.7 would restrict his submission only in respect of the finding of the learned Single Judge with regard to Annexures-R1 and R2. Learned counsel for the appellant invites attention of this Court to the affidavit (Annexure-R1) and the letter dated 01.10.2018 (Annexure- R2) and submits that the petitioner himself had withdrawn from the selection process with an undertaking that he would not challenge the appointment of appellant/respondent No.7 before the Court or any authority. In the said circumstances, the learned Single Judge committed an error in observing that Annexures-R1 and R2 are created documents by the management to suit their purpose. Further, learned counsel for the appellant/respondent No.7 would submit that whether affidavit (Annexure-R1) and the letter dated 01.10.2018 - 8 - WA No.100441 of 2023 c/w WA No.100496 of 2023 (Annexure-R2) submitted by the petitioner is concocted or fabricated is a question of fact which could not have been gone into in the writ petition. Learned counsel would submit that having withdrawn from the selection, the petitioner has no right to challenge the appointment of respondent No.7. Thus, he prays for allowing the writ appeal and prays to set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. 8. Learned counsel, Sri. J.S.Shetty appearing for the petitioner would support the order of the learned Single Judge and submits that the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is contrary to the material on record. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioner being more meritorious, there is no reason to submit the affidavit (Annexure-R1) and the letter dated 01.10.2018 (Annexure- R2) withdrawing the candidature and to state that he would not challenge the appointment made by the management. Further, learned would submit that the petitioner is seriously pursuing before this Court and authorities under revision and if the petitioner had no interest in the appointment, he would not have pursued the matter before the revisional authority - 9 - WA No.100441 of 2023 c/w WA No.100496 of 2023 as well as this Court. Thus, learned counsel prays for dismissal of the writ appeals. 9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having perused the entire writ appeal papers, the only point which falls for consideration is, Whether the appellant/respondent No.7 has made out any grounds to interfere with the impugned common order passed by the learned Single Judge? 10. The answer to the above point would be in the negative for the following reasons: There is no dispute with regard to participation of the petitioner and respondent No.7 in the selection process held in response to the notification dated 04.20.2018 issued by Respondent No.5 to fill up the post of English subject. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is more meritorious having secured 65.70 percentage of marks in the qualifying examination, while the percentage of marks secured by respondent No.7 in the qualifying examination is 62.05. Initially, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the petitioner has not passed the 10th standard/SSLC examination in Kannada Medium or with - 10 - WA No.100441 of 2023 c/w WA No.100496 of 2023 Kannada Language as one of the main subjects. The said submission is refuted by the learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon the SSLC certificate at Annexure-D which would clearly indicate that the petitioner has studied Kannada as third language for 100 marks. Therefore, the learned Single Judge is justified in coming to the conclusion that rejection of the petitioner’s candidature by respondent No.5 on the ground that non-passing of Kannada is bad in law. Learned Single Judge on careful examination of affidavit (Annexure-R1) and the letter dated 01.10.2018 (Annexure-R2) has rightly come to the conclusion that those documents cannot be believed and that those documents are created documents to suit their purpose. Even if there is such a finding against the management, the management has not filed any appeal, and it is only the beneficiary, who is less meritorious than the petitioner, who has filed the appeals. Learned Single Judge on examination of Annexures-R1 and R2, at paragraphs 10 to 12, has assigned appropriate reasons which read as follows: “10. Therefore, I find force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Annexures – - 11 - WA No.100441 of 2023 c/w WA No.100496 of 2023 R1 and R2 are created documents by the management to suit their purpose. The petitioner has also filed an application under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. before the 1st respondent to initiate appropriate action against the concerned who have created Annexure – R1 and R2. However, no action was taken on the said application by the Appellate Authority and on the other hand, the Appellate Authority has placed reliance on Annexures – R1 and R2 and has held that in view of withdrawal of the objections by the petitioner for the appointment of the 7th respondent to the post of English Teacher, the revision petition does not merit consideration. 11. When the petitioner has been seriously prosecuting these two writ petitions from the year 2019 onwards, it becomes highly doubtful that he would have withdrawn his objections to the appointment of the 7th respondent to the post of English Teacher. When admittedly he is more meritorious than the 7th respondent and qualifies in all aspects to be appointed to the said post, it is difficult to believe the version of respondents. Even though the learned counsel for the 5th and 7th respondents has submitted that the petitioner is now gainfully employed somewhere else, learned counsel for the petitioner has denied the same and he has stated that the petitioner is only working as daily wager on temporary basis as on this date. 12. Since the petitioner is more meritorious candidate compared to the 7th respondent and since he is qualified in all other aspects, the rejection of his candidature vide Annexure – F dated 20.03.2018 is bad in law and therefore same cannot be sustained. It is - 12 - WA No.100441 of 2023 c/w WA No.100496 of 2023 pursuant to the said rejection, the candidature of the 7th respondent was considered by the management for appointment and accordingly they had issued an appointment letter dated 26.03.2018 vide Annexure – V which is produced by the petitioner alongwith statement of rejoinder filed by him on 24.02.2022. Therefore, even the said appointment of the 7th respondent which is pursuant to the rejection of the petitioner’s candidature cannot be sustained. The petitioner’s objections to the appointment of the 7th respondent to the post of English Teacher has been rejected by the competent authority only by placing reliance on Annexures – R1 and R2 which are said to be issued by the petitioner withdrawing his objection. Even the appellate Authority has dismissed his revision on the said ground. For the reasons assigned hereinabove it becomes highly doubtful that petitioner has withdrawn his objections for the appointment of 7th respondent.” 11. We have also gone through affidavit (Annexure- R1) and the letter dated 01.10.2018 (Annexure-R2) said to have been submitted by the petitioner. On going through the said affidavit and the letter, there is no strong reason to disagree with the finding of the learned Single Judge, more so, when the petitioner is more meritorious than respondent No.7. - 13 - WA No.100441 of 2023 c/w WA No.100496 of 2023 12. For the reasons recorded above, we do not find any reason or merit to interfere with the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, writ appeals are dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE KMS