- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6860-DB WA No. 100495 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH 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.100495 OF 2023 (S-DIS) BETWEEN: RAJU S/O. YAMUNAPPA MORE, AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. LIBRARY ASSISTANT, KULAHALLI, TQ. JAMAKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587301. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. VIJAY MALALI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF LIBRARY, VIKAS SOUDHA, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE CHIEF LIBRARIAN, DISTRICT LIBRARY, SECTOR NO.19, ROAD NO.6, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT-587101. 3. THE SECRETARY, KULAHALLI GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ. JAMAKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587301. 4. HANUMANTHA S/O. AVVAPPA GODACHI, AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC. NIL, R/O. MAREGUDDI, TQ. JAMAKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587301. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. SHIVAKUMAR BADAWADAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R4; NOTICE TO R3 IS SERVED) Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6860-DB WA No. 100495 of 2023 THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, R/W RULE 26 AND 27 OF THE WRIT PROCEEDINGS RULES, 1977 AS AMENDED, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16/06/2023 PASSED IN WP NO.68014/2011 (S-DIS) AND CONSEQUENTLY WRIT PETITION MAY DISMISSED IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND ETC.,. THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT) This writ appeal filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, is directed against the learned Single Judge’s order dated 16.06.2023 passed in W.P.No.68014/2011, whereunder allowed the writ petition, directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service. 2. Heard learned counsel Sri. Vijay Malali for the appellant/4th respondent, learned AGA for respondents No.1 and 2 and learned counsel Sri. Shivakumar Badawadagi for the 4th respondent/petitioner. Perused the entire writ appeal papers. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6860-DB WA No. 100495 of 2023 3. The parties will be referred to as per their ranking before the learned Single Judge, for the sake of convenience. 4. The petitioner was appointed as a Library Supervisor on 18.02.1991 by the 2nd respondent at Kulahalli Gram Panchayat in Jamkhandi Taluk. Thereafter, in terms of the resolution of Gram Panchayat, dated 08.04.2011, the petitioner was terminated from service, which was the subject matter of W.P.No.68014/2011. The learned Single Judge on hearing the parties, set aside the order of termination dated 08.04.2011 with liberty to initiate appropriate action against the petitioner as also directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service. It is noticed that on 18.02.1991, the appellant/4th respondent, who was appointed as Sweeper, was asked to take care of the library. This Court having found that the reply of the petitioner submitted to the show cause notice dated 11.12.2008 is not considered and the procedure followed is not proper, allowed the writ petition by setting aside the order of termination, directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6860-DB WA No. 100495 of 2023 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned Single Judge has not taken note of the fact that the 4th respondent was appointed to look after the library and as the 4th respondent was looking after library, the learned Single Judge ought to have protected the interests of the 4th respondent. However, he prays for a direction to the official respondents to consider the case of the 4th respondent/appellant herein for providing employment. Hence, he prays for allowing of the writ appeal. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel Sri. Shivakumar Badawadagi on behalf of petitioner submits that the 4th respondent/appellant herein was appointed as group-D Sweeper and he was not working as Library Supervisor. The 4th respondent was appointed temporarily only to clean the library and to open the library. He submits that the 4th respondent has no right to continue and moreover he submits that he was not appointed as Library Supervisor. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ appeal. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ appeal papers, we are of the view - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6860-DB WA No. 100495 of 2023 that the appellant has not made out any ground to take a different view from the learned single Judge. The petitioner was appointed as Library Supervisor in the year 1991 on a resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat. In terms of the endorsement dated 08.04.2011, the petitioner was terminated from service. The learned Single Judge has rightly found that the procedure followed for termination is not proper and hence set aside the order of termination, which needs no interference. 8. The 4th respondent in the meanwhile was appointed temporarily as sweeper to look after the library and he cannot claim that he was performing the duties of Library Supervisor. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner to the post originally he was holding in terms of Annexure-A dated 18.02.1991 of Chief Librarian, District Central Library, Vijayapura. That the appellant/4th respondent, who was appointed temporarily as sweeper, cannot claim that he was discharging the duties of Library Supervisor. In that view of the matter, the appellant/4th respondent has no locus to challenge the order passed by the learned Single Judge in favour of the petitioner. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6860-DB WA No. 100495 of 2023 9. It is open for the appellant/4th respondent to make appropriate representation to the Gram Panchayat i.e., 3rd respondent herein, seeking appropriate relief. 10. With the above observation, the writ appeal stands disposed of. Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE PMP CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3