- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2668 WP No. 104371 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 104371 OF 2024 (S-RES) BETWEEN: MISS. JAYASHRI D/O NAGESH CHAVAN, AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: SARASWATHI NAGAR, HANAPUR S.P., TQ: GULEDAGUDD, DIST: BAGALKOTE- 587203. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRINAND A. PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. TEH GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU- 560001. 2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PANCHAYAT, BAGALKOTE, DIST. BAGALKOTE- 587101. 3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUK PANCHAYAT, GULEDGUDDA, DIST: BAGALKOTE- 587203. 4. THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, HANAPUR S.P. GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ. GULEDGUDD, DIST: BAGALKOTE- 587203. Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2668 WP No. 104371 of 2024 5. SMT. SHRADHA R. CHIMMANAKATTI, AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: NOT KNOWN, R/O: HANAPUR S.P., TQ. GULEDAGUDD, DIST: BAGALKOTE- 587203. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. KIRTHILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1, SRI BHUSHAN B. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4, SRI SHIVARAJ S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE FOR R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE FINAL SELECTION LIST BEARING NO. ZIPAMBA/GRANTHALAYA/2023-24 (¸ÀASÉå: f¥ÀA¨Á/ UÀæAxÁ®AiÀÄ/ 2023-24) DATED 06-07-2024 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO. 2 MARKED AT ANNEXURE-A. PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR ORDERS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT TO GRANT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, INCLUDING AN ORDER AS TO COSTS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER BEARING NO. TAPANGUI/GRANTHALAYA/SIBBANDI/2023-24 (¸ÀASÉå: vÁ¥ÀAUÀÄ/ UÁæ¥ÀAºÁ/ UÁæAxÁ®AiÀÄ/ ¹§âA¢/ 2023-24) DATED 22/07/2024 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 4 MARKET AT ANNEXURE-G, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2668 WP No. 104371 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the select list, dated 06.07.2024 by which the fifth respondent is chosen to the post of Library Supervisor in the fourth respondent – Hanapur S.P. Gram Panchayat. 2. Heard the learned counsel Shri Srinand A.Pachhapure appearing for the petitioner and the learned HCGP Smt. Kirtilatha R.Patil appearing for respondent No.1, learned counsel Shri Bhushan B.Kulkarni appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4 & the learned counsel Shri Shivaraj S.Balloli appearing for respondent No.5. 3. The facts in brief germane are as follows: The second respondent issues a notification for selection of 23 vacant posts of Superintendents of Library and Information Sciences in Bagalkot District. The petitioner and the fifth respondent finding themselves eligible, applied to the said post on 19.10.2023. Pursuant to the process of selection, the fourth respondent notifies a - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2668 WP No. 104371 of 2024 provisional select list on 19.12.2023. The name of the petitioner was not in the said list, neither the name of the fifth respondent. Though, the name of the petitioner was not found, did not file objections, but the fifth respondent filed objections to the provisional select list. 4. The result of the objections was second provisional select list notified by the fourth respondent. It is then the petitioner wakes up and files objections that her name ought to have been found in the select list and non- consideration of the said objections had driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. 5. During the pendency of the petition, a final select list is notified, by which the fifth respondent comes to be appointed and therefore an amendment to the petition has come about raising a challenge to the selection of the fifth respondent. 6. Learned counsel Shri Shrinand A.Pachhapure appearing for the petitioner would take this Court though - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2668 WP No. 104371 of 2024 the provisional select list to demonstrate that the petitioner is higher in merit as she has secured 91.17%, while the selected candidate, the fifth respondent has secured 89% in the qualifying examination and on this score and the learned counsel would seek to contend that name of the petitioner ought to have been in the provisional select list and the selection ought have been made in favour of the petitioner. Dismissed of the petition 7. Learned counsel for the fifth respondent, the appointee, Shri Shivaraj Balloli would submit that the petitioner though is found to be more meritorious, the computer certificate that was required to be produced is not from a Government Recognized Computer Centre, but a Private Computer Centre, Therefore the fifth respondent is preferred and no fault can be found with such preference.he seeks dismissal of the petition. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the other respondents would also toe the lines of the learned counsel Shri Shivaraj Balloli representing the fifth respondent. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2668 WP No. 104371 of 2024 9. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material record. 10. The factum of issuance of a notification calling for applications to the post of Superintendents of Library and Information Centers in the precincts of the Gram Panchayat is a matter of record. The application by the petitioner and the fifth respondent is also a matter of record. A first provisional select list is notified on 19.12.2023. Both the names of the petitioner and the fifth respondent were not found. The fifth respondent objects to the name of the petitioner not being present in this provisional select list. The petitioner does not. 11. A second provisional select list is notified owing to the objections of the fifth respondent, on 11.03.2024, to which the petitioner wakes up and files objections. Notwithstanding the objections, the selection is in favour of the fifth respondent and the fifth respondent is appointed. The crux now would be whether the selection of the fifth - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2668 WP No. 104371 of 2024 respondent is in tune with law. It becomes necessary to notice the relevant clause of the notification it reads as under: “10) ±ÉÊPÀëtÂPÀ «zÁåºÀðvÉ:- 1. CfðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¨sÀwð ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¤UÀ¢¥Àr¹zÀ PÉÆ£ÉAiÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀzÀAzÀÄ F PɼÀUÉ £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀĪÀ PÉÆõÀÖPÀzÀ°è DAiÀiÁ ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼À ªÀÄÄAzÉ ¸ÀÆa¹gÀĪÀ «zÁåºÀðvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß C¨sÀåyðUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÉÆA¢gÀ¯ÉèÉÃPÀÄ. ¤UÀ¢¥Àr¹gÀĪÀ «zÁåºÀðvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÉÆAzÀzÉà ºÉaÑ£À «zÁåºÀðvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢zÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ ¥ÀjUÀt¸À¯ÁUÀĪÀÅ¢®è. PÀæ.¸ÀA ºÀÄzÉÝ «zÁåºÀðvÉ DAiÉÄÌ «zsÁ£À 1) "UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄw UÀæAxÁ®AiÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀiÁ»w PÉÃAzÀæUÀ¼À ªÉÄðéZÁgÀPÀgÀ" 1. ¢éwÃAiÀÄ ¥ÀzÀ« ¥ÀǪÀð ¥ÀjÃPÀë (¦.AiÀÄÄ.¹)AiÀÄ°è GwÛÃtðgÁVgÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ. 2. ¸Ànð¦üPÉõÀ£ï PÉÆøïð E£ï ¯Éʧæj ¸ÉÊ£ïì £À°è ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæ ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ ºÁUÀÆ 3. PÀ¤µÀ× ªÀÄÆgÀÄ wAUÀ¼À PÀA¥ÀÇålgï PÉÆøïð£À°è GwÛÃtðgÁVgÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ. ¤UÀ¢¥Àr¹zÀ «zÁåºÀðvÉAiÀÄ°è UÀ½¹zÀ UÀjµÀ× CAPÀUÀ¼ÀÄ / ªÉÄjmï DzsÁgÀzÀ°è 1) “UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄw UÀæAxÁ®AiÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀiÁ»w PÉÃAzÀæUÀ¼À ªÉÄðéZÁgÀPÀg”À ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ ¤UÀ¢¥Àr¹zÀ «zÁåºÀðvÉAiÀiÁzÀ ¢éwÃAiÀÄ ¥ÀzÀ« ¥ÀǪÀð ¥ÀjÃPÉë (¦.AiÀÄÄ.¹)AiÀÄ°è GwÛÃtðgÁVgÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸Ànð¦üPÉõÀ£ï PÉÆøïð E£ï ¯Éʧæj ¸ÉÊ£Àìß°è ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæ ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ ºÁUÀÆ PÀ¤ÃµÀ× ªÀÄÆgÀÄ wAUÀ¼À PÀA¥ÀÇålgï PÉÆøÀð GwÛtðgÁVgÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ. «zÁåºÀðvÉAiÀÄ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À £ÉÊdvÉ §UÉÎ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ ¸ÀPÀëªÀÄ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀ¢AzÀ zÀÈqsÀ¥Àr¹PÉÆAqÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £ÉêÀÄPÁwUÉ ¥ÀjUÀt¸À¯ÁUÀĪÀÅzÀÄ. 3. UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄw UÀæAxÁ®AiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ªÀiÁ»w PÉÃAzÀæzÀ ªÉÄðéZÁgÀPÀ ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ Cfð ¸À°è¸ÀĪÀ C¨sÀåyðUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄw ªÁå¦ÛAiÀÄ ¤ªÁ¹AiÀiÁVgÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ ¥ÀgÀAvÀÄ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄwAiÀÄ ªÁå¦ÛAiÀÄ ¤ªÁ¹AiÀÄ ®¨sÀåvÉ E®èzÉà EzÀÝ°è DAiÀiÁ vÁ®ÆPÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄwAiÀÄ ªÁå¦ÛAiÀÄ°è£À ¨ÉÃgÉ UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄwAiÀÄ C¨sÀåyðAiÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß DAiÉÄÌUÉ ¥ÀjUÀt¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ.” - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2668 WP No. 104371 of 2024 In terms of the afore-quoted clause of eligibility / educational qualification, one should have a pass in PUC, both the fifth respondent and petitioner have; one should have a certificate course in Library Sciences, both the petitioner and the fifth respondent have; and one should have pass three months minimum computer course, both the petitioner and the fifth respondent have. The issue is who should be chosen for selection. In the light of all the criteria of selection being met both by the petitioner and the fifth respondent, the issue boils down to merit. Admittedly, the petitioner has secured 91.17% in the qualifying examination and the fifth respondent has secured 89%, when all traits are equal even or otherwise. It is merit that takes a higher notion and merit cannot be compromised in any kind of selection. 12. The only reason projected by the respondents including the selectee is that, the petitioner does not have a pass in computer course in a Government Recognized - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2668 WP No. 104371 of 2024 Institution, and the fifth respond has a pass in computer course in a Government Recognized Institution, while the petitioner secures it in a Private Institution. The qualification quoted (supra) is indicative of the fact that three months computer course should be completed, where it should be completed, is not mandated in the said notification. Therefore, the petitioner being higher in merit, and having a computer course, albeit in a private entity, that by itself cannot deny an appointment to the petitioner who is admittedly more meritorious than the fifth respondent. In the aforesaid circumstance, the fifth respondent will have to give way to the petitioner for appointment as a Library Superintendent at the Information Center in the Gram Panchayat. 13. Learned counsel Shri Shivaraj Balloli submits that owing to the pendency of the petition the fifth respondent who had been appointed pursuant to the impugned order dated 06.07.2024 has not been paid salary. If that be so, respondent Nos.2 to 5 shall ensure - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2668 WP No. 104371 of 2024 payment of complete salary to the fifth respondent for having worked from 06.07.2024 till the implementation of this order. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The final selection list dated 06.07.2024 issued by the second respondent vide Annexure-A stands quashed, (iii) The respondents shall offer appointment to the petitioner bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order (iv) The said exercise shall be undertaken within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (v) Till such time the services of the fifth respondent shall not be disturbed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE VNP / CT: ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25