SRI CHETAN KUMACHAGI S/O GURAPPA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
WP/102329/2024 · 2026-01-14
K S Hemalekha
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 52738 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 52738 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:442 WP No. 102329 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 102329 OF 2024 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. CHETAN KUMACHAGI S/O. GURAPPA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, WORKING AS LABORATORY ASSISTANT, COLLEGE OF HORTICULTURE, BAGALKOT-587104, BAGALKOT DISTRICT. 2. SRI. PUTTARAJ S/O. PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, WORKING AS CARETAKER, UNIVERSITY OF HORTICULTURAL SCIENCE, UDYANAGIRI, BAGALKOTE, BAGALKOT DISTRICT-587104. 3. SMT. MEENAKSHI D/O. MALLIKARJUNA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, WORKING AS WARD GIRL, UNIVERSITY OF HORTICULTURAL SCIENCE, UDYANAGIRI, BAGALKOTE, BAGALKOT DISTRICT-587104. 4. SRI. AMARESH S/O. SRI. ERAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, WORKING AS PLUMBER, COLLEGE OF HORTICULTURE, UHS CAMPUS, MUNIRABAD, KOPPAL-583233, KOPPAL DISTRICT. 5. SRI. VEERESHAPPA S/O. SRI. DURGAPPA KOND, AGED 38 YEARS, WORKING AS PUMP ATTENDER, DSLD COLLEGE OF HORTICULTURAL, ENGINEERING AND FOOD TECHNOLOGY, DEVIHOSURU, HAVERI DISTRICT. 6. SRI. HUCHCHESHJIGALUR S/O. SANGANABASAPPA,
GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Date: 2026.01.22 15:27:09 +0530
- 2 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:442 WP No. 102329 of 2024
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, WORKING AS DRIVER (LV), UNIVERSITY OF HORTICULUTRAL SCIENCE, BAGALKOT, BAGALKOT DISTRICT-587104. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VIJAYKUMAR B.BAJENTRI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HORTICULTURE DEPARTMENT AND SERICULTURE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE UNIVERSITY OF HORTICULTURE SCIENCE R/BY ITS REGISTRAR, UDYAGIRI, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT-587104. 3. THE DEAN, COLLEGE OF HORTICULTURE, BAGALKOT-587104, BAGALKOT DISTRICT. 4. THE DEAN, COLLEGE OF HORTICULTURE, UHS CAMPUS, MUNIRABAD, KOPPAL-583233, KOPPAL DISTRICT. 5. THE DEAN, DSLD COLLEGE OF HORTICULTURAL ENGINEERING AND FOOD TECHNOLOGY, DEVIHOSURU, HAVERI DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NANDINI B.SOMAPUR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. GANGADHAR S.HOSAKERI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R3 TO R5 IS SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RELEVANT RECORDS, RELATING TO ISSUE OF IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO. HORTI 187 HGM 2023 DATED 30.03.2024 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-L AND AFTER PERUSAL SET ASIDE THE SAME; DIRECT THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO CONTINUE THE SERVICES OF THE PETITIONERS IN THE POSTS IN WHICH THEY WERE APPOINTED AND GRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL SERVICE BENEFITS TO WHICH THEY ARE LEGALLY ENTITLED TO, WITHIN THE TIME FRAME PRESCRIBED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT AND ETC.
- 3 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:442 WP No. 102329 of 2024
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners, who are working as a non-teaching employees in the University of Horticultural Sciences and its constituent colleges situated in the Hyderabad-Karnataka region, have approached this Court calling in question the
order dated 30.03.2024 issued by respondent No.1, whereby the appointment orders issued in their favour have been directed to be withdrawn on the ground that prior approval of the finance department had not been obtained.
Brief facts:
2. Respondent No.2-University issued notifications dated 10.07.2019 and 31.12.2019, inviting applications to fill up various non-teaching Group-C and D posts under the local cadre in terms of Article 371-J of the Constitution of India. The said notifications were issued pursuant to the Regulations of the University and with approval of the State
- 4 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:442 WP No. 102329 of 2024
Government. The petitioners participated in the selection process, and were recommended by the duly constituted selection committee and were issued appointment orders during the year 2023. After approval by the competent authority, the petitioners reported for duty and have been discharging their functions continuously.
3. Subsequently by the impugned order dated 30.03.2024, respondent No.1 directed withdrawal of the appointment orders solely on the ground that prior approval of the finance department was not obtained before issuance of the recruitment process leading to the present writ petition.
4.
Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the appointments were made pursuant to the valid notifications, a regular selection process, and approval of the competent authorities and therefore, cannot be annulled retrospectively. The posts in question are sanctioned, falling under local cadre of Hyderabad-Karnataka region, governed
- 5 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:442 WP No. 102329 of 2024
by Article 371-J of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that in view of the Karnataka Public Employment (Reservation in Appointment for Hyderabad Karnataka Region)
Order, 2013, concurrence of the finance department is statutory presumed, and the impugned order is contrary to the said notification. The petitioners cannot be made to suffer for any alleged inter-departmental lapse between the State Government and the finance department.
5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State justifies the impugned order contending that the prior approval of finance department is mandatory for filling up of non-teaching posts and in absence of such approvals, the appointments are unsustainable.
6. This Court has carefully considered the
contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
- 6 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:442 WP No. 102329 of 2024
7. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were appointed pursuant to the notifications issued in the year 2019, followed by a regular selection process and issuance of appointment orders in the year 2023. The petitioners have worked for considerable period and their appointments were never alleged to be tainted by fraud, misrepresentation or lack of qualification. The posts in question are Group-C and D in the State funded Universities situated in Hyderabad-Karnataka region.
8. The recruitment to such posts is governed by Karnataka Public Employment (Reservation in Appointment for Hyderabad-Karnataka Region) Order 2013, issued under Article 371-J of the Constitution of India.
9. Rule 10 (2) of the Order 2013 reads thus:
“10. Order to have over-riding effect:- (1) XXXX (2) Concurrence of Finance Department shall be presumed for the direct recruitments and promotions made under these orders.
- 7 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:442 WP No. 102329 of 2024
(3) XXXX (4) XXXX (5) XXXX”
10. The said Rule expressly provides that the requirement to local cadre post shall have overriding effect notwithstanding anything contained in Act, Rule, Regulation or Executive Instructions and further declares that the concurrence of the finance department shall be presumed for direct recruitment made under the said order.
11. Therefore, the very foundation of the impugned
order, namely absence of prior finance department approval, runs contrary to the statutory notification issued under Article 371-J of the Constitution of India and cannot be sustained. It is well settled law that the employees who are appointed through a lawful process cannot be penalized for alleged procedural lapses attributable solely to the employer or the Government. Any internal administrative or financial arrangement between the departments cannot operate to the determinant of the employees, who are not
- 8 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:442 WP No. 102329 of 2024
at all fault. The withdrawal of appointment orders after the petitioners have entered service and discharged duties for substantial period is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
12. Accordingly, this Court pass the following:
ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 30.03.2024 issued by respondent No.1, directing withdrawal of the appointment orders of the petitioners is hereby quashed. iii. The respondents are directed to continue with the petitioners in service in the posts to which they are appointed. iv. The petitioners are entitled for all consequential service benefits including payment of salary in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
AT Ct:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 65