Karnataka High Court
Chinnamma W/O Dhulappa Kodyal vs The Chief Secretary And Ors on 10 March, 2026
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2265
WP No. 200260 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO. 200260 OF 2023 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
CHINNAMMA W/O DHULAPPA KODYAL,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O CHITTAPUR, TQ. LINGASUGUR,
DIST. RAICHUR.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI AMIT KUMAR CHAGASHETTI, ADVOCATE APPEARING
ON BEHALF OF
SRI. G. G. CHAGASHETTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
SWETA KULKARNI 1. THE CHIEF SECRETARY
Location: HIGH ZILLA PANCHAYAT, RAICHUR,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA DIST. RAICHUR-585401.
2. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
TALUKA PANCHAYAT, LINGASUGUR,
DIST. RAICHUR-585401.
3. THREE MEMBER COMMITTEE FOR
THE RECRUITMENT TO THE
POST OF ASSISTANT COOK, CHITTAPUR,
TQ. LINGASUGUR, DIST. RAICHUR-585401.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2265
WP No. 200260 of 2023
HC-KAR
4. KHANABAI W/O RAMESH,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC: ASSISTANT COOK,
GOVT. HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, CHITTAPUR,
TQ.LINGASUGUR, DIST. RAICHUR-585401.
5. THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
GRAM PANCHAYAT CHITTAPUR,
TQ. LINGASUGUR, DIST. RAICHUR-585401.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VENKATESH C. MALLABADI, ADVOCATE FOR
R1, R2 & R5
SRI V.K. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
R3 SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, A)
ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 08.12.2022 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN CASE
NO.vÁ¥ÀA°A/CzÁ/¥Áæx/À ¥Ëæq±
sÀ Á¯É/C¹£ÉÃ/2022-23 PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-E AND JOINING REPORT DATED 03.01.2023
(RECEIVED ON 21.12.2022) ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYAT
DEVELOPMNET OFFICER GRAM PANCHAYAT CHITTAPUR VIDE
ANNEXURE - E1. II) ISSUE ANY OTHER SUITABLE ORDER OR
DIRECTION AS DEEMS FIT UNDER THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL ORDER
1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is filed with a prayer to issue a writ of -3- NC: 2026:KHC-K:2265 WP No. 200260 of 2023 HC-KAR certiorari and quash the order dated 08.12.2022 passed by respondent No.3 in proceedings bearing No. vÁ¥ÀA°A/CzÁ/¥Áæx/À ¥Ëæq± Às Á¯É/C¹£ÉÃ/2022-23 at Annexure - E and the Appointment Order at Annexure - E1 dated 03.01.2023 issued by respondent No.5.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. In response to the Notification dated 13.07.2022 issued by respondent No.5 calling for applications to the post of Assistant Cook in Government Higher Primary School, Chittapura, petitioner had filed an application under Backward Community Category. Along with the application, she had produced all requisite documents in support of her candidature. Respondent No.3, which is the Committee constituted for the purpose of appointment to the post of Assistant Cook under the aforesaid Notification, had recommended the name of the petitioner to respondent No.2 for the purpose of appointment to the post of Assistant Cook in Government Higher Primary School, Chittapura. However, respondent No.2 having rejected the recommendation of respondent No.3 - Committee has directed respondent No.5 to appoint respondent No.4 to the -4- NC: 2026:KHC-K:2265 WP No. 200260 of 2023 HC-KAR post of Assistant Cook in Government Higher Primary School, Chittapura, vide order at Annexure - E dated 08.12.2022. Pursuant to the said order at Annexure-E, respondent No.5 has issued the Appointment Order at Annexure - E1 dated 03.01.2023 in favour of respondent No.4. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that, respondent No.3 - Committee is the competent authority for the purpose of scrutinizing the applications received from candidates seeking appointment to the post of Assistant Cook/Cook. The eligibility criteria of the candidates is mentioned in the Notification issued by respondent No.5 - Panchayat, calling for applications from the eligible candidates to the post of Assistant Cook/Cook to be appointed in the Government Higher Primary School, Chittapura. The Committee in its meeting that was held on 29.11.2022 had decided to recommend the name of the petitioner for the purpose of appointment to the post of Assistant Cook in Government Higher Primary School, Chittapura. Respondent No.2, who is competent authority to confirm the candidature of petitioner as -5- NC: 2026:KHC-K:2265 WP No. 200260 of 2023 HC-KAR per the recommendation made by respondent No.3 - Committee, vide the impugned order, has rejected petitioner's candidature on the ground that respondent No.3 - Committee had violated the Government Guidelines and the President of Gram Panchayat as well as the President of SDMC were not in support of recommendation made by the Committee. It is under these circumstances, respondent No.2 had directed respondent No.5 to appoint respondent No.4 to the post of Assistant Cook in Government Higher Primary School, Chittapura, vide his order at Annexure - E dated 08.12.2022.
5. A reading of the terms and conditions of the Notification at Annexure - B would go to show that in the event, respondent No.2 is not satisfied with the recommendation of respondent No.3 - Committee, he can reject the same. In the said event, he is required to return the recommendation of the Committee and he cannot appoint any other candidate, who has not been recommended by the Committee for appointment. Respondent No.2, therefore, had no jurisdiction to direct respondent No.5 to appoint respondent No.4 to the post of Assistant Cook in Government Higher Primary School, -6- NC: 2026:KHC-K:2265 WP No. 200260 of 2023 HC-KAR Chittapura after having rejected the recommendation of respondent No.3 - Committee. If respondent No.2 was of the view that the Committee had violated the Government Guidelines while recommending the candidature of the petitioner, all that he could have done is reject the recommendation and direct the Committee to forward a fresh recommendation in accordance with law. However, in the present case, respondent No.2 has exceeded his jurisdiction and has directed respondent No.5 to appoint respondent No.4 to the post of Assistant Cook in Government Higher Primary School, Chittapura, which was not permissible.
6. Under the circumstances, the impugned order at Annexure - E dated 08.12.2022 and the subsequent Appointment Order issued by respondent No.5 at Annexure - E1 dated 03.01.2023 appointing respondent No.4 to the post of Assistant Cook in Government Higher Primary School, Chittapura, pursuant to the order dated 08.12.2022 passed by respondent No.2 at Annexure E, cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the following order:-
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2265 WP No. 200260 of 2023 HC-KAR
7. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order at Annexure - E dated 08.12.2022 passed by respondent No.2 and the impugned Appointment Order at Annexure - E1 dated 03.01.2023 issued by respondent No.5 are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE DN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49 Ct:pk