- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47653-DB W.A. No.710/2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT APPEAL NO.710/2023 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. RAMESH S/O DODDARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/O JANAKALOTI HOBLI I.D. HALLI HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMKURU DISTRICT-575001. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. GIRISH M.K. ADV.,) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ M S BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560001. 2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYATH TUMKURU DISTRICT TUMKUR. 3. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYATH MADHUGIRI TALUK MADHUGIRI TUMKUR DISTRICT. Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM Location: High Court Of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47653-DB W.A. No.710/2023 4. THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER CHIKKADALAVATTA GRAMA PANCHAYTH I.D.HALLI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT. 5. THE ADHYAKSHA CHIKKADALAVATTA GRAMA PANCHAYTH I.D.HALLI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT. 6. SHRI. D. NARASIMHAMURTY S/O DURGAPPA AGE 36 EARS R/O UPPIDIPALLI VILLAGE MANUR MAJARA MADAKASHIRA TALUK ANDHARA PRADESH. TEMPORARILY WORKING AS BILL COLLECTOR CHIKKADALAVATA VILLAGE PANCHAYATH, I.D.HALLI HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 04-01-2023 PASSED IN W.P. No.25556/2014 (S-RES) AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AND GRANT THE PRAYERS AS SOUGHT IN THE WRIT PETITION BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47653-DB W.A. No.710/2023 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) This appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, seeking to set aside the order dated 04.01.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.25556/2014 (S-RES). 2. Heard Sri.Girish M.K., learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the appellant was a local candidate, who was entitled to preference in the matter of appointment to the post of Bill Collector as is evident from Annexure-D. It is submitted that though respondent No.6 had produced domicile certificate and other documents, he originally belongs to Andhra Pradesh and that he should not have been considered as a local candidate. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the documents produced by respondent No.6 were also suspect and that the Panchayat had not approved the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47653-DB W.A. No.710/2023 resolution appointing respondent No.6 within the time provided. 4. We notice that the learned Single Judge had considered the contentions of both parties. The learned Single Judge found that the publication inviting applications was on 09.02.2010; the petitioner as well as respondent No.6 belong to Scheduled Caste community and they were both graduates. By resolution dated 12.03.2010, the respondent No.6 was selected and the Panchayat had resolved to approve the appointment of respondent No.6. The learned Single Judge also found that respondent No.6 had produced all documents including domicile certificate, transfer certificate, voter I.D. and caste certificate. It was noticed that respondent No.6 was born in I.D.Halli Village, Madhugiri Taluk and had completed his SSLC in a Government School in Midigeshi, Madhugiri Taluk and that he is a permanent resident of Madhugiri. It was considering these facts as well as also the fact that as against the appointment made in the year - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47653-DB W.A. No.710/2023 2010, the challenge was raised only in the year 2014 that the learned Single Judge found that the appointment of respondent No.6 could not be interfered with by this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Having considered the contentions advanced and having perused the impugned judgment as well, we are of the opinion that no ground has been made out in this appeal to set aside the order of the learned Single Judge refusing to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE BSR/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25