Karnataka High Court
Sri C Sachin Gowda vs The Chief Executive Officer on 5 September, 2023
Bench: Chief Justice, Krishna S Dixit
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:31932-DB
WA No. 33 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
WRIT APPEAL NO. 33 OF 2023 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. C SACHIN GOWDA,
S/O CHIKKATHIMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
R/AT GOVINEGOWDANA DODDI,
KASABA HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT -562 159.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M R RAJAGOPAL., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. M.VEERABHADRAIAH.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by SHARADA 1. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
VANI B RAMANAGARA,
Location: HIGH RAMANAGARA DISTRICT -562 159.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
TALUK PANCHAYATHI,
B M ROAD CHANNAPATNA,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT -562 159.
3. THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
HONGANURU GRAMPANCHAYATH,
CHANNAPATNA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT -562 160.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:31932-DB
WA No. 33 of 2023
4. SRI. SHARATH A
S/O ANKEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
R/AT GOVINDEGOWDANA DODDI,
KASABA HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT -562 159.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
09.11.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP
No-13513/2022 AND B) CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WP
FILED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT UPON CONFIRMING THE
RESOLUTION DATED 27.01.2020 AS WELL AS THE ORDER OF
THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 18.02.2022 WHICH ARE
RESPECTIVELY MARKED AS ANNEXURE-H AND K IN THE WRIT
PETITION AND ETC.,
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Appellant was the 4th Respondent in
W.P.No.13513/2022 filed by the 4th Respondent herein.
The challenge was laid to the Panchayat Resolution dated
27.01.2020 whereby the Appellant herein was appointed
as Waterman and to the order dated 18.02.2022 whereby
the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Panchayat had
accorded approval to the said appointment. Both the
Resolution and the approval order having been faltered
came to be quashed by the learned Single Judge of this
NC: 2023:KHC:31932-DB
WA No. 33 of 2023
court and the same is called in question in this appeal.
Learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits
that the impugned order is vulnerable for challenge
inasmuch as it ignores power of the Grama Panchayat to
make appointment of the kind; the appellant being the
local candidate has been selected and was sought to be
appointed; this cannot be said to be wrong.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant
and having perused the appeal papers, we decline
indulgence in the matter inasmuch as, any appointment
has to be preceded by a select list prepared on the basis of
comparative merits of the candidates in the fray.
Admittedly, the assessment of comparative merits was not
undertaken and therefore learned Single Judge is right in
quashing the appointment and its approval.
3. It is not that the new recruitment is blocked by
the impugned order and the appellant is eschewed from
being a candidate in the said process. At sub para (b) of
NC: 2023:KHC:31932-DB
WA No. 33 of 2023
paragraph 13 of the impugned order has the following
text:
"b)The third Respondent- Grama Panchayat in
pursuance to public notice dated 21.11.2019
(Annexure-A) is directed to prepare merit list of
the post of Waterman at
Channankegowdanadoddi Village, select and
appoint meritorious candidate in conformity with
Article 14 of the Constitution of India and
forward proposal for approval to the first
respondent. The 1st respondent shall examine
the proposal on its merit and pass orders. The
entire process shall be completed within a
period of three months from the date of receipt
of copy of this Order."
4. The vehement submission of learned Sr. Advocate
for the appellant that what is said by the learned Single
Judge above needs clarification, does not much impress
us. Learned Single Judge has lucidly stated that the
preparation of select list on the basis of comparative
merits of the candidates is a normative requirement for
making appointment. Merely because the candidate now
selected happens to be a local candidate, he does not
march over more meritorious ones in the fray. Had he
been similarly circumstanced along with others in terms of
merits, perhaps some preference being shown on account
NC: 2023:KHC:31932-DB
WA No. 33 of 2023
of his being a local candidate, arguably could have been
countenanced. However, that is not the case here.
In the above circumstances, this writ appeal lacking
in merits deserves to be and accordingly is dismissed.
Costs made easy.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
Bsv
