Sri.Somashekara G.A vs The Secretary
2021 Latest Caselaw 6201 Kant

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                        PRESENT

          THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

                          AND

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

              W.P.No.15180/2021 (S - KSAT)

BETWEEN :

SRI SOMASHEKARA G.A.,
S/O SRI APPAJIGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/O GOWDAGERE VILLAGE,
CHENNAPATNA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA-562108                            ...PETITIONER

                 (BY SRI G.T.KUMAR, ADV.)

AND :

1.      THE SECRETARY,
        HOME DEPARTMENT
        VIDHANA SOUDHA,
        BANGALORE-1

2.      THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF
        POLICE IN KARNATAKA,
        NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
        BANGALORE-1

3.      THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR
        GENERAL OF POLICE
        RECRUITMENT & TRAINING,
        BARTON HOUSE, PALACE ROAD,
        BANGALORE-1
                           -2-

4.    SRI GOVINDARAJU M.V.,
      S/O VENKATESH, KPTCL,
      BEHIND TELEPHONE OFFICE,
      BETTADAPURA POST, PIRIYAPATNA,
      MYSORE DISTRICT-570012

5.    SRI K.SHIVASHANKAR
      S/O LATE T.K.NAIK,
      NO.218/1, 7TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
      CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE-18

6.    SRI U.UMASHANKAR
      S/O HANUMANTHARAYAPPA,
      K.43 (1213), 14TH CROSS,
      1ST BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR,
      BANGALORE.                            ...RESPONDENTS

            (BY SRI B.RAJENDRA PRASAD, HCGP.)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR
THE ENTIRE RECORDS FROM THE TRIBUNAL IN RESPECT OF
THE FINAL ORDER DATED 03.04.2019 PASSED IN A.NO.
125/2013 BY THE BENCH OF THE KARNATAKA STATE
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU AND ON PERUSAL
OF THE SAME GRANT THE FOLLOWING RELIEFS AND ISSUE A
WRIT OF CERTIORRI THEREBY QUASHING THE FINAL ORDER
DATED 03.04.2019 PASSED IN A.NO.125/2013 BY THE BENCH
OF THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT
BANGALURU, VIDE ANNEXURE-C ANTE AS THE SAME IS
ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND ALSO SUFFERS FROM THE ERROR
APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD AND ETC.

      THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, S. SUJATHA, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                          ORDER

In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for

the following reliefs:-

i) Issue a writ of certiorari thereby quashing the final order dated 03.04.2019 passed in A.No.125/2013 by the bench of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru, vide Annexure - C ante as the same is illegal, arbitrary and also suffers from the error apparent on the face of the record;

ii) Issue a writ of Mandamus thereby allowing the application bearing A.No.125/2013 filed by the Petitioner on the file of the KSAT at Bangalore, and grant all the reliefs as sought for by the petitioner in the said main application; and

iii) Pass any such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the given circumstances of the case including the award of the costs in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The petitioner claiming to be one of the

aspirant/candidate to serve in the Police Department

had applied for the post of Police Sub-Inspector (PSI) in

pursuance to the Notification dated 07.02.1996. Though

he was called for interview on 01.07.1998, he was not

selected. The petitioner had approached the Tribunal in

the earlier round in Application No.2984/2007

challenging the order dated 15.11.2006, endorsement

dated 26.05.2007 issued by the respondent Nos.1 and 3

respectively inter alia seeking for a direction to set aside

the appointment of ineligible candidates and direct the

official respondents to consider the case of the petitioner

for appointment to the post of PSI. A memo was filed

by the petitioner to withdraw the said application with

liberty to approach the Tribunal on the same cause of

action. The Tribunal had permitted the petitioner to

withdraw the said application but no liberty was given

as sought for. In other words, the liberty sought for, in

the memo was rejected in express terms. Having regard

to this aspect, the Tribunal has held that filing of

repetitive applications seeking for the same relief is not

entertainable.

3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the

representation submitted by him to consider his

candidature for the appointment of PSI on par with 23

candidates (Annexure - A3) who had approached the

Hon'ble Apex Court has not yielded any results, has not

been addressed by the Tribunal in the proper

perspective.

4. In the case of Ashok @ Somanna Gowda

and another vs. State of Karnataka and others

reported in 1992 (1) SCC 28, referred to, by the learned

counsel for the petitioner, the Hon'ble Apex Court has

categorically observed that no case of other candidates

could be considered on par with the appellants therein.

Considering this judgment as well, the Tribunal has

dismissed the application. Learned counsel for the

petitioner has reiterated the aforesaid two grounds

before this Court, which do not merit any consideration.

Resultantly, the writ petition stands dismissed.

In view of the dismissal of the petition, all pending

I.As. stand dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

PMR