1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V.ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO.5310/2025 (S-KSAT) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.5562/2025 (S-KSAT) W.P.NO.5310/2025 BETWEEN: 1. SRI VISHWAS S S/O. SAMPATH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, GRADE-1 PRESENTLY UNDER TRAINING AT STATE INSTITUTE OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT CHAMUNDI HILL ROAD, SIDDHARTHA LAYOUT, MYSURU - 570 011. PERMANENTLY R/AT ARUSHI NILAYA, 13TH CROSS, CHAMUNDESHWARI NAGAR, MANDYA - 571 401. 2. SMT. SINCHANA M. S., W/O. NISARG SHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, GRADE 1, PRESENTLY UNDER TRAINING AT STATE INSTITUTE OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, 2 CHAMUNDI HILL ROAD, SIDDHARTHA LAYOUT, MYSURU - 570 011 PERMANENTLY R/AT NO.318, 11TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN, A1 BLOCK, 3RD STAGE, VIJAYNAGAR, MYSURU. 3. SMT. BHUVANA G L D/O. LINGEGOWDA G. S., AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, GRADE-1, PRESENTLY UNDER TRAINING AT STATE INSTITUTE OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, CHAMUNDI HILL ROAD, SIDDHARTHA LAYOUT, MYSURU - 570 011 PERMANENTLY R/AT AT KAVERI NAGARA, SECOND STAGE, NEAR KARNATAKA BANK ATM, MANDYA -571401. 4. SRI. NAVEEN GOVINDAPPA HUCHARADDI S/O GOVINDAPPA T., AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, GRADE - 1, PRESENTLY UNDER TRAINING AT STATE INSTITUTE OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, CHAMUNDI HILL ROAD, SIDDHARTHA LAYOUT, MYSURU - 570 011. RESIDING AT HUCHARADDI A/P, KAMALADINNI TALUK, GOKAK DISTRICT, BELGAUM. 5. SRI. SRIDHAR HOSAMANI, S/O. C H HOSAMANI, 3 AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, GRADE - 1, PRESENTLY UNDER TRAINING AT STATE INSTITUTE OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, CHAMUNDI HILL ROAD, SIDDHARTHA LAYOUT, MYSURU - 570 011. PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT VINAYAK NAGAR, MUDHOL, BAGALKOT. 6. SRI. SANJEEVA KUMAR BIRADAR, S/O. PARANNA BIRADAR, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, GRADE 1, PRESENTLY UNDER TRAINING AT STATE INSTITUTE OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, CHAMUNDI HILL ROAD, SIDDHARTHA LAYOUT, MYSURU - 570 011 RESIDING AT PLOT NO. 103, WARD NO.04, NEAR SOLAPUR RING ROAD, SUKOON LAYOUT, BIJAPUR. 7. SRI. ASHOK BASAPPA WADDAR, S/O. BASAPPA WADDAR, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, GRADE - 1, PRESENTLY UNDER TRAINING AT STATE INSTITUTE OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, CHAMUNDI HILL ROAD, SIDDHARTHA LAYOUT, MYSURU - 570 011 PERMANENT R/OF NIMBAL BK TALUK, INDI DISTRICT, VIJAYAPURA. 4 8. SRI. ANANDKUMAR S/O. VENKATESH BADIGER, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, GRADE - 1, PRESENTLY UNDER TRAINING AT STATE INSTITUTE OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, CHAMUNDI HILL ROAD, SIDDHARTHA LAYOUT, MYSURU-570 011. RESIDING AT H. NO.10/2/4, BEHIND ZPE OFFICE BUDABHOVIGALLI, SHORAPUR. 9. SRI. AMARNAYAK S. S/O. S. ADAPPA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, GRADE - 1, PRESENTLY UNDER TRAINING AT STATE INSTITUTE OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, CHAMUNDI HILL ROAD, SIDDHARTHA LAYOUT, MYSURU - 570 011. R/AT H.NO. 21, WARD NO. 21, SIDDARTHA COLONY, 3RD CROSS, NEAR CHAITANYA COLLEGE, GANDHI NAGAR, BALLARI - 583 101. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M S BHAGWATH, SR. ADV. FOR SRI A.B. DIVYATHEJ, ADV.) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ, M. S. BUILDING, BENGALURU 560 001. 5 2. KARNATAKA STATE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, UDYOGA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R1 SRI P.S. RAJAGOPAL, SR. ADV. FOR SRI K.M. PRAKASH & SMT. M.R. SINCHANA, ADV. FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18/02/2025 PASSED IN APPLICATION NOS. 527-535/2025 AND 537-545/2025 (ANNEXURE-A); B) SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18/02/2025 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NOS. 527-535/2025 AND 537-545/2025 (ANNEXURE-A) IN SO FAR AS REJECTION OF THE INTERIM PRAYER IS CONCERNED AND CONSEQUENTLY GRANT THE INTERIM PRAYER AS SOUGHT FOR BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL (ANNEXURE-B) AND ETC. W.P.NO.5562/2025 BETWEEN: SRI VISHWANATH B S/O BEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, GRADE- 1, PRESENTLY UNDER TRAINING IN STATE INSTITUTE OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, CHAMUNDI HILL ROAD, SIDDHARTHA LAYOUT, 6 MYSURU - 570 011 R/A KANGUVALLI, HOSADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA-577515. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. V LAKSHMINARAYANA, SR. ADV. FOR SRI VIKRAM BALAJI, ADV.) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ, MS BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001. 2. KARNATAKA STATE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, UDYOGASOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R1 SRI P.S. RAJAGOPAL, SR. ADV. FOR SRI K.M. PRAKASH & SMT M.R. SINCHANA, ADV. FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18.02.2025 IN OA NO-527-535/2025 (ANNEXURE- B) PASSED BY THE KSAT BENGALURU AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE KSAT BENGALURU IN OA NO- 527-535/2025; B) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO PROVIDE THE PETITIONER WITH A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD BEFORE TAKING ANY ACTION BASED ON THE REPORT DATED 24.01.2025 WHETHER BY THE DEPARTMENT THE GOVERNMENT OR THE KPSC AND ETC. 7 THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 13.08.2025 COMING ON THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.V.ARAVIND CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) Both the above writ petitions are directed against the interim order dated 18.02.2025 in Applications No.527 – 535 & 537 – 545 of 2025 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short “Tribunal”), whereby, the Tribunal, rejected the interim prayer of the petitioners to stay the operation, implementation and execution of all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned communication dated 22.02.2024 (Annexure-A9) issued by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1. 2. The brief facts of the case are that: 8 Respondent No.2 issued notification dated 03.09.2022, inviting applications to fill up the posts of Assistant Executive Engineer Grade-1 in the first respondent Department. The petitioners applied for the said post and took part in the selection process. In terms of the notification inviting applications, written examination followed by personality tests were conducted. Thereafter, on 22.09.2023, provisional select list was published and final select list of Assistant Executive Engineer Grade-1 was published on 31.01.2024. On 22.02.2024, respondent No.2 addressed a letter to the first respondent stating that a Sub-Committee is formed to examine and submit a report on the allegation of illegality in the selection process and further stated that enquiry by the Committee is at the preliminary stage and report is yet to be submitted. Therefore, requested not to issue appointment orders to the candidates in terms 9 of final select list dated 31.01.2024. However, respondent No.1 issued orders of appointment to the petitioners on 25.06.2024, 08.07.2024 and 05.01.2025. The second respondent also issued notice of enquiry dated 13.01.2025 calling upon the petitioners to attend enquiry before the Sub- Committee. In the above background, petitioners approached the Tribunal in Applications No.527-535 & 537-545 of 2025, challenging the communication dated 22.02.2024 and also praying to strike down condition No.12 in the appointment notification dated 25.06.2024 i.e., appointment of petitioners would be subject to final order to be passed by the second respondent-Karnataka Public Service Commission (“KPSC” for short) in the matter of selection. The petitioners had also sought for stay of communication dated 22.02.2024 and the Tribunal, under impugned order rejected petitioner’s prayer to stay the 10 communication dated 22.02.2024. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court. 3. Heard learned senior counsels Sri.M.S.Bhagawat for learned counsel Sri.A.B.Divyatej for petitioners in W.P.No.5310/20205, learned senior counsel Sri.V.Lakshminarayana for Sri.Vikram Balaji, learned counsel for petitioner in W.P.No.5562/2025, learned senior counsel Sri.P.S.Rajagopal for Sri.K.M.Prakash and Smt.M.R.Sinchana, learned counsel for respondent No.2/KPSC and learned AGA Sri.B.Ravindranath for respondent No.1. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 4. Learned senior counsels appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners participated in the selection process to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer Grade-1 and they were selected in final select list published on 31.01.2024. 11 Pursuant to the said final select list, the petitioners are appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer Grade-1 in the first respondent-Department under appointment orders dated 25.06.2024, 08.07.2024 and 05.01.2025 and they are discharging duties in the said post. Learned senior counsels for the petitioners would submit that once selection process is completed, the second respondent-KPSC would become functus officio and KPSC could not have initiated any enquiry on the alleged irregularity or illegality in the selection process. Learned senior counsels would also submit that the petitioners are all meritorious candidates and they are not involved in any malpractice in the selection process. Without there being any basis, the second respondent-KPSC could not be have formed Sub-Committee to enquire into the irregularity or illegality in the selection process. Learned senior counsels would further 12 contend that the resolutions are passed by the second respondent, undoing the select list and also to treat the petitioners as tainted candidates in the selection process and those resolutions are without notice to the petitioners. Learned senior counsels would submit that when the second respondent-KPSC itself has conducted the examination and completed the process of selection, it is impermissible to allege any malpractice in the selection process. 5. Learned senior counsel Sri.M.S.Bhagawat referred to the order dated 31.05.2006 in W.P.No.50714/2004 (STATE OF KARNATAKA V/S SRI.K. MOHAMMED IRFAN AND OTHERS) (Annexure-A17) passed by a co-ordinate Bench to contend that, once the selection list is forwarded and appointment order is issued, it is for the Appointing Authority to take appropriate action and not the Selecting Authority i.e., KPSC. Further, learned senior 13 counsel would submit that this Court on 25.02.2025 granted interim order directing the respondents not to precipitate the matter which is continued from time to time. Therefore, it is prayed to continue the interim order granted on 25.02.2025 and to direct the Tribunal to hear and dispose of the main application itself. 6. Per contra, learned senior counsel Sri.P.S.Rajagopal appearing on behalf of the second respondent would refute the contentions of the learned senior counsels for the petitioners, referring to Rule 20 of Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 and submit that it is permissible for the Appointing Authority or Selecting Authority to initiate action, if there is any allegation of irregularity or illegality in the selection process. Further, learned senior counsel would submit that as the second respondent/KPSC received objections and 14 complaints alleging malpractice in the selection process, the second respondent constituted Sub- Committee to go into the said allegations and submit its report. Learned senior counsel would submit that petitioners cannot contend that no investigation shall be conducted in the matter of alleged illegality or malpractice in the selection process. 7. Learned senior counsel Sri.P.S.Rajagopal would refer to the statement of objections filed by the second respondent/KPSC and Annexures to the statement of objections to submit that CCTV clippings and other materials would prima facie point out malpractice and illegality in the selection process which needs investigation. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petitions. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, we 15 are not inclined to accept the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners and the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed for the following reasons: The instant writ petitions are against the interim dated 18.02.2025 wherein petitioners’ prayer to stay the communication dated 22.02.2024 from the second respondent to first respondent informing that the second respondent has constituted a Sub-Committee to go into the allegations of irregularity or illegality and malpractice in the selection process of Assistant Executive Engineer Grade-1 and that the enquiry is at the preliminary stage and final report is awaited. Further, through communication dated 22.02.2024, the second respondent requested the first respondent not to issue appointment orders in pursuance of the final select list dated 31.01.2024. However, it is noticed that the first respondent issued appointment orders on 25.06.2024, 08.07.2024 and 05.01.2025, 16 appointing the petitioners as Assistant Executive Engineer Grade-1 in the first respondent-Department. The contentions raised by the petitioners are to be considered by the Tribunal at the time of final disposal of the applications. At this stage, the contentions raised by the petitioners if considered, nothing would remain for the Tribunal to consider in the pending applications. Moreover, prima facie, we are of the view that Rule 20 of General Recruitment Rules empowers the Selecting Authority or Appointing Authority to take action against the candidate/candidates of using or attempting to use unfair means in the examination conducted for the purposes of recruitment or otherwise resorting to any other irregular or improper means in connection with his recruitment, may in addition to rendering himself liable to a criminal prosecution and to disciplinary action. 17 9. It is an admitted fact that though the second respondent in its letter dated 22.02.2024 requested the first respondent-State Government not to issue appointment orders to the candidates in pursuance of final selection list dated 31.01.2024, the State Government appointed the petitioners under orders of appointment dated 25.06.2024, 08.07.2024 and 05.01.2025. In the said circumstances, it would be appropriate for the first respondent not to disturb the appointment of petitioners during the pendency of the applications before the Tribunal. 10. The petitioners in W.P.No.5562/2025 have not approached the Tribunal and have directly approached this Court, questioning non-granting of interim prayer in Application Nos.527–535 & 537-545/2025. The petitioners could not have approached this Court directly under Article 226 of the Constitution of India 18 as the petitioners are government servants and the subject matter of their grievance relates to recruitment. For redressal of grievance of the petitioners, a Special Forum is constituted under the provisions of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The Tribunal would be the Court of first instance and the petitioners ought to have approached the Tribunal at the first instance in the matter of recruitment and service conditions of the government servants. For the said reason, W.P.No.5562/2025 is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected as not maintainable. However, learned senior counsel Sri.V.Lakshminarayana for petitioners would submit that subsequently, they have approached the Tribunal by filing applications. Be that as it may, as on the date of filing the writ petition, the petitioners had not approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal by assigning cogent reason has rightly rejected the interim prayer. 19 For the reasons stated above, we are also of the view that petitioners have not made out prima-facie case for grant of interim order. Moreover, mere participation in the enquiry proceedings will not cause prejudice to the petitioners. The Tribunal without being influenced by the observation made above shall proceed to hear and dispose of the pending applications. 11. For the reasons recorded above, both the writ petition stand rejected. SD/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE SD/- (K.V.ARAVIND) JUDGE MPK CT: bms