- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17842 RP No. 100118 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA REVIEW PETITION NO. 100118 OF 2022 (-) BETWEEN: SHRI. KOTRESHI H S/O DURGAPPA AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: VILLAGE ASSISTANT (GRAM SAHAYAK) GAJAPUR VILLAGE, R/O: TIMALAPUR-583134 TQ: KOTTUR DIST: BALLARI …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRINIVAS B. NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE TAHASILDAR TALUKA OFFICE KUDLIGI-583135 TQ: KUDLIGI, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR 2. THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR NADA KARYALAYA KOTTUR-583134 TQ: KOTTUR, DIST: BALLARI 3. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR NADAKACHERI KOTTUR-583134 TQ: KOTTUR, DIST: BALLARI 4. THE VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT GAJAPUR VILLAGE KUDLIGI-583135 TQ: KUDLIGI, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR 5. SHRI. H MUGAPPA S/O LATE RANGAPPA AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: KANDAGAL VILLAGE-583135 TQ: KUDLIGI, DIST: VIJAYANAGARA RAKESH S HARIHAR Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.12.12 14:34:12 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17842 RP No. 100118 of 2022 6. SHRI. H KUBHERA S/O DURGAPPA AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: GRAM SAHAYAK GAJAPUR VILLAGE R/O: TIMALAPURA-583134 TQ: KOTTUR, DIST: BALLARI …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DINESH M. KULKARNI A/W MS. VAIBHAVI INAMDAR, ADVS FOR R5; SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; NOTICE TO R6 IS DISPENSED WITH) REVIEW PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 READ WITH 151 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 24-11-2021 PASSED IN W P NO.80547-48/2013 AND TO DISMISS THE SAID WRIT PETITION AS PRAYED FOR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS REVIEW PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer: “Wherefore, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court to be pleased to review the Order dated 24-11-2021 passed in W P No.80547-48/2013 and to dismiss the said Writ Petition as prayed for, in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Sreenava B. Naik, appearing for review petitioner and learned counsel Sri.Dinesh M. Kulkarni along with Ms.Vaibhavi Inmadar, appearing for the fifth respondent. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17842 RP No. 100118 of 2022 3. The fifth respondent was initially appointed as Grama Sahayak in Gajapura Village. His services came to be terminated in the year 2013. The said termination was questioned before this Court in Writ Petition No.80547 of 2013. The Writ Petition came to be allowed on 24.11.2021 by the following order: “ORDER i) Writ petitions stand allowed. ii) The impugned proceedings/order dated 22.2.2013 passed by respondent No.1 vide Annexure-L is herby quashed; iii) Respondent No.1 is directed to reinstate the petitioner into service as Grama Sevak with all service benefits. Liberty is reserved with respondent No.1 to take action against the petitioner in accordance with law; iv) It is also needless to state that respondent No.1 is at liberty to discharge the services of the petitioner upon petitioner completion of five years of service from the date of appointment of petitioner as Grama Sevak in accordance with law.” 4. In terms of the said order, it transpires that the fifth respondent, who was in the writ petitioner, has been reinstated into service. The present petitioner claims to have been appointed as Grama Sahayak in the interregnum in the aforesaid village and has filed a review petition contending that he was not made a party to the writ proceedings and therefore, the order - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17842 RP No. 100118 of 2022 ought not to have been passed as it, in effect, takes away his employment. 5. The writ petition was preferred in the year 2013 and the person who was appointed immediately after the relief of the writ petitioner was made a party that is the fifth respondent. The fifth respondent appears to be the brother of the present petitioner, who has succeeded in continuing in the said post after his brother’s tenure was over. The termination of the writ petitioner having been held to be illegal, a direction for reinstatement has rightly been issued. 6. In the light of the said circumstance of the writ petitioner being reinstated and continuing in service, there is no warrant of interference at this stage, that too at the hands of the petitioner. The review petition lacking merit stands rejected. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE RHR/CT CNB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32