Sri Siddeshwara C vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 7617 Kant

                              1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MAY 2022

                         PRESENT

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                             AND

           THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M. KHAZI

              W.A. NO.1112 OF 2021 (S-RES)
                           IN
              W.P.No.36777 OF 2019 (S-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI. SIDDESHWARA .C
S/O SIRIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/O. PALAVVANAHALLI VILLAGE
IMANGALA HOBLI, HIRIYURU TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 577532.
                                            ... APPELLANT
(BY MR. ONKARA K.B. ADV.,)

AND:

1.      THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
        REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
        DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND
        PANCHAYATRAJ, M S BUILDING
        BANGALORE 560001.

2.      THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
        ZILLA PANCHAYAT, CHITRADURGA
        CHITRADURGA, DISTRICT 577501.

3.      THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
        BURUJINAROPPA GRAM PANCHAYAT
        BURUJINAROPPA, IMANGALA HOBLI
                                  2



      HIRIYURU TALUK
      CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 577532.

4.    SRI. THIPPESWAMY
      S/O CHOWDAPPA
      AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
      R/O. BURUJINAROPPA VILLAGE
      IMANGALA HOBLI,
      HIRIYURU TALUK
      CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 577532
                                           ... RESPONDENTS
(BY MRS. VANI H, AGA)
                            ---

      THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RELEVANT RECORDS
AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.08.2021
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No.36777/2019
(S-RES) AND ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL AS PRAYED.
CONSEQUENTLY ISSUE AN APPROPRIATE WRIT ORDER OR
DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE 2ND
RESPONDENT AND 3RD RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE
REPRESENTING SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 15.03.2019
AS PER ANNEXURE-A IN WP No.36777/2019.

     THIS W.A. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS
DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                           JUDGMENT

Mr.Onkara K.B., learned counsel for the appellant.

Smt.Vani H., learned Additional Government Advocate

for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.

This intra Court appeal arises out of order dated

19.08.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge by which writ

petition preferred by the appellant has been dismissed.

2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are

that the appellant claims that the resolution dated

17.02.2018 was passed by Gram Panchayat in his favour,

appointing him as a Bill Collector. It is also averred that the

aforesaid resolution was approved by the Chief Executive

Officer and therefore, the appellant has a right to seek

appointment to the post of Bill Collector. However, the

respondent No.4 was appointed on the post of Bill Collector

in compliance of an order passed by this Court. Thereupon,

the appellant filed a writ petition in which a direction was

sought to the Chief Executive Officer and the Panchayat

Development Officer to cancel the appointment of the

respondent No.4 and to appoint the appellant to the post of

Bill Collector. The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed by

the learned Single Judge inter alia on the ground that mere

passing of a resolution to appoint the appellant to the post of

Bill Collector would not confer any right on the appellant to

seek appointment. It was further held that the resolution

passed in favour of the appellant was not approved by the

Chief Executive Officer. It was further held that there was no

vacancy to the post of Bill Collector and the petitioner has no

right to seek appointment to the post of Bill Collector. In the

aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the

resolution which was passed in favour of the appellant has

been approved by the Chief Executive Officer in terms of

Section 113 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat

Raj Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short)

and therefore, the appellant has a right to seek appointment

to the post of Bill Collector.

4. We have considered the submissions made by the

learned counsel for the appellant. It is trite law that a writ of

mandamus ensues when there is a legal right and

corresponding legal duty. The appellant in the instant case,

has no legal right to claim appointment to the post of Bill

Collector. At the most, he can seek a right to be considered

for appointment to the post of Bill Collector. It is pertinent to

note that the resolution was passed in favour of the appellant

on 17.02.2018 whereas the approval said to be accorded by

the Chief Executive Officer is granted on 11.08.2017.

Therefore, the contention that the resolution by which the

appellant was sought to be appointed to the post of Bill

Collector, has been approved by the Chief Executive Officer

under Section 113 of the Act, is misconceived and is factually

incorrect. Mere passing of a resolution by the Gram

Panchayat does not by itself confer a person a right to seek

appointment. The appellant has failed to prove the infraction

of either any legal right or any corresponding legal duty on

the respondents to appoint him to the post of Bill Collector.

For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any

merit in the appeal. The same fails and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE RV