- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15501-DB WA No. 690 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO. 690 OF 2024 (S-RES) BETWEEN: 1. B M PRASANNA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, S/O A K MANJAPPA, BEERAGONDANAHALLI, HONNALI TALUKU, DAVANAGERE-577224. …APPELLANT (BY SRI GANAPATHI BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR SRI VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYAT, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577001. 2. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYAT, HONNALI TALUK-577217. 3. THE BEERAGONDANAHALLI GRAM PANCHAYATH BEERAGONDANAHALLI, HONNALI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577224, REPRESENTED BY ITS PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER. Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15501-DB WA No. 690 of 2024 4. SMT. RANJEETHA B O W/O GANESH G N, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O BEERAGONDANAHALLI, HONNALI TALUK, DAVANAGERE-577224. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI JAGADEESWARA N R, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3; SRI RAMAKRISHNA N, ADVOCATE FOR SRI MARUTHI S, ADVOCATE FOR R-4) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18.12.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P. NO.13838/2022 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) 1. The present intra Court appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 18.12.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.13838/2022. 2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the writ Court. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15501-DB WA No. 690 of 2024 3. A Notification dated 19.09.2014 was issued by the Zilla Panchayat, Davanagere Distrct, calling for applications to fill up the post of Bill Collector. The following were the eligibility criteria prescribed for the said post: 1. Should be a General Category candidate; 2. Should have passed PUC and should have computer training. PUC pass mark sheet and computer training certificate to be attached with the application; 3. Age should be between 18 to 36 years; 4. First preference for the candidate under Gram Panchayat jurisdiction. 4. It appears that altogether 26 candidates applied in pursuance to the said notification for the post of Bill Collector. After the selection, one Sri M.G.Gurumurthy was selected to the post. The said selection of M.G.Gurumurthy came to be challenged by Sri B.M. Prasanna Kumar, who is the appellant herein, by filing W.P.No.61024/2016. One Sri Anjaneya G had also filed W.P.No.64739/2016. Both the writ petitions were allowed and the appointment of Sri M.G.Gurumurthy was quashed. Further, the Gram Panchayat was directed to appoint - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15501-DB WA No. 690 of 2024 a candidate in the merit list as per the selection process. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction issued by this Court, the Taluk Panchayat passed an order dated 24.03.2022 in favour of one Smt. Ranjitha B.O. appointing her to the post of Bill Collector. 5. Sri B.M. Prasanna Kumar, who is the appellant herein, submitted a representation to the Gram Panchayat questioning the authenticity of the Computer Certificate that Smt. Ranjitha B.O had submitted along with her application. On the basis of the said representation, the proceedings were initiated and ultimately, the order dated 21.11.2023 was passed cancelling the appointment of Smt. Ranjitha B.O. on the post of Bill Collector. Smt. Ranjitha B.O. challenged the said order dated 21.11.2023 in W.P.No.26247/2023. The appellant herein also filed W.P.No.13838/2022 challenging her appointment. 6. The learned Single Judge has heard both the writ petitions together and held that as per the Notification dated 19.09.2014 inviting applications to fill up the post of Bill Collector, the only requirement vis-à-vis the educational qualification was pass in PUC. Therefore, it was clear that the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15501-DB WA No. 690 of 2024 person who has secured higher percentage in PUC would have to be preferred and the percentage secured in the higher educational course would not be the eligibility criteria. The computer certificate was not an essential qualification as prescribed in the notification inviting the applications and the selection was to be made on the basis of the marks obtained in PUC examination. 7. It is not in dispute that Smt. Ranjitha B.O. was found to be more meritorious than the appellant-Sri B.M. Prasanna Kumar inasmuch as she had secured higher percentage in PUC than the appellant. The learned Single Judge, therefore, passed the impugned order quashing the order of cancellation of appointment of Smt. Ranjitha B.O. on the post of Bill Collector and allowed her writ petition whereas, the writ petition filed by the appellant came to be dismissed. 8. Since, the only qualification prescribed in the notification inviting the applications was PUC and Smt. Ranjitha B.O. had secured higher percentage in PUC than the appellant-Sri B.M. Prasanna Kumar, the cancellation of appointment of Smt. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15501-DB WA No. 690 of 2024 Ranjitha B.O. on the ground of Computer Certificate issued by the Competent Authority cannot be sustained. 9. We, therefore, find no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. The writ appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE BKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24