Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 52695 (KAR)

SRI. SHANTINATH NASHIPUDI S/O NINGAPPA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/101260/2025 · 2025-11-04

Geetha K B, S G Pandit

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14964-DB WP No. 101260 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B. WRIT PETITION NO.101260 OF 2025 (S-KAT) BETWEEN: SRI. SHANTINATH NASHIPUDI S/O NINGAPPA AGE. 39 YEARS, OCC. NIL, R/O. GUDAS, HUKKERI TALUK, BELAGAVI DISTRICT 591310. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.S. CHALAWADI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, 2ND GATE, 6TH FLOOR, R/BY. ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION & LITERACY, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU 01. 2. THE DIVISIONAL SECRETARY, SECONDARY EDUCATION EXAMINATION BOARD, EX-OFFICIO JOINT DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, BELAGAVI DIVISION, BELAGAVI-01. 3. THE SPECIAL OFFICER, CENTRALIZED ADMISSION CELL, K.G. ROAD, OPP. CAUVERY BHAVAN, OLD JUNIOR COLLEGE CAMPUS, BENGALURU 560002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.K. HIREGOUDAR, PRL. GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE AN APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06.11.2024 IN APPLICATION NO.11215/2023 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION & ETC. VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14964-DB WP No. 101260 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B. ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT) The unsuccessful applicant before the Tribunal1 is before this Court questioning the order dated 6.11.2024 passed in Application No.11215/2023 by the Tribunal, whereunder the petitioner’s prayer for issuance of a writ of mandamus to consider his representation dated 17.3.2023 submitted on 18.3.2023 (Annexure-A9) pertaining to the selection to the post of Physical Education Teacher (Grade-I) in the year 2012-13 is rejected. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for respondents No.1 to 3. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 3. It is stated that on 2.4.2012, respondent No.2 issued notification inviting application from the eligible 1 Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Belagavi - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14964-DB WP No. 101260 of 2025 candidates to fill-up the post of Secondary School Assistant Master Grade-II and Physical Education Teacher Grade-I in Belagavi Division. The selection process was complete by publication of final select list and issuing the appointment letter to the selected candidates in the year 2013. Admittedly, for the reason best known to the petitioner, he was not selected for the post of Physical Education Teacher Grade-I. The petitioner is stated to have submitted representation dated 17.3.2023 to the respondents to consider his case for appointment. As the respondents failed to consider his representation, the petitioner was before the Tribunal in the above stated application. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner urges several grounds, but we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition, since the petition/application and the petitioner’s prayer suffers from delay of more than 10 years in approaching the Tribunal with regard to selection and appointment as Physical Education Teacher Grade-I. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14964-DB WP No. 101260 of 2025 5. An aggrieved person shall approach the Court/Tribunal within a reasonable time. The selected and appointed candidates, by lapse of time, acquired vested right in the post, to which they are appointed. By lapse of time, the settled position cannot be unsettled. In the instant case, the selection, which has attained finality by way of appointment in the year 2013, cannot be disturbed at this length of time. 6. For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition stands rejected. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of as not surviving for consideration. Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (GEETHA K.B.) JUDGE JTR CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 18