Karnataka High Court
Ravi Manikrao Hallenore vs The Karnataka Public Service ... on 4 January, 2023
Bench: Anant Ramanath Hegde
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4th DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
W.P.No.200545/2022 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
Sri Ravi Manikrao Hallenore,
S/o Manikrao Hallenore,
Aged about 36 years,
R/o House No.22-2-68/2,
Kaveri Khanavai Thair Maidan,
Behind Aggni Kunda,
Humnabad, Bidar.
.... Petitioner
(By Smt.Ratna N.Shivayogimath, Advocate)
AND:
2. The Karnataka Public Service Commission,
Rep by its Secretary,
Udyoga Soudha, Bengaluru - 1.
2. The Executive Director,
Karnataka Residential Educational Institution Society,
Sheshadripuram, Bengaluru - 09.
... Respondents
(By R.J.Bhusare, Advocate for R1;
Sri Sharanabasappa K.Babshetty, Advocate for R2)
2
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ or order
or direction writ in the nature of certiorari set aside the
impugned order dated 12.02.2021 in No.KaVashiSaSa/
Aadaitha/Ne.ne/Vishi/C.R-HK-19/2019-20 issued by
respondent No.2 vide Annexure-J and etc.
This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in 'B'
Group, this day, the court made the following:-
ORDER
Heard Smt.Ratna N.Shivayogimath, leaned counsel
appearing for petitioner.
2. This writ petition is filed seeking writ of
certiorari to quash the order dated 12.02.2021 issued by
the second respondent vide Annexure-J.
3. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of
the case can be summarized as under :-
The petitioner applied for the post of Teacher in
terms of notification issued by first respondent. The final
list of selected candidates was published vide Annexure-C
on 05.11.2019. The petitioner's name is found at Sl.No.19.
It appears that a complaint is filed by the petitioner's wife
alleging dowry harassment against the petitioner. Based
on this complaint an endorsement at Annexure-J was
issued stating that the petitioner's name is dropped from
the selection list. The petitioner has questioned this order
dated 12.02.2021 issued by the second respondent.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would
submit that authority was not justified in dropping the
name of the petitioner from the list of selected candidates
on the basis of the complaint filed by his wife.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also filed
an application for production of additional document and
has produced the judgment in C.C.No.1384/2020 on the
file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Bhalki. From the said
judgment, it is apparent that the present petitioner who
was the accused in the aforementioned case was acquitted
of all charges leveled against him.
6. It is also forthcoming from the said judgment
that a charge-sheet was filed based on the complaint filed
by his wife. Since the present petitioner is acquitted of all
charges leveled against him, this court finds that
Annexure-J which was issued based on the allegation made
by the wife of the present petitioner has to be set-aside
and consequently same is set-aside.
7. The petitioner shall furnish all the requisite
documents before the second respondent and second
respondent shall consider the same in accordance with law
and proceed further to recruit the petitioner to the post of
Teacher for which he was selected in terms of Annexure-C.
8. The whole exercise shall be completed within a
period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of
this order.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
sn
