Karnataka High Court
Smt Anitha T vs Chief Executive Officer on 18 August, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:31904-DB
WA No. 1097 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1097 OF 2024 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT ANITHA T
W/O. K.SHIVAKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
NUSGERE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI,
MALURU TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563130
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI KALYAN R, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
AND:
by PRABHAKAR
SWETHA
KRISHNAN 1. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Location: High
Court of KOLAR ZILAPANCHAYATH,
Karnataka KOLAR
KOLAR DISTRICT-563130.
2. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY
ZILLAPANCHAYATH KOLAR AND
MEMBER SECRETARY
VILLAGE PANCHAYATH
LIBRARIANS SELECTION
COMMITTEE KOLAR DISTRICT
KOLAR DISTRICT-563130.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:31904-DB
WA No. 1097 of 2024
HC-KAR
THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
3.
TALUKA PANCHAYATH, MALURU,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563130.
4. PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER.
NUSGERE GRAMAPANCHAYATH,
MALURU TALUKA,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563130.
5. SRI MOHAN K.
S/O. KUPENDRA,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
OCC NIL
RESIDING AT NUSGEREVILAGE,
HURALAGERE POST, MALURU TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563135.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.BABU RAO, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-5)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN
W.P.NO.24532/2023 AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
10/06/2024 IN WP NO.24532/2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE AND CONSEQUENTLY TO DISMISS THE WRIT
PETITION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN
AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:31904-DB
WA No. 1097 of 2024
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU ,CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU,CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. Issue notice.
2. Mr. M. Babu Rao, the learned counsel accepts notice for
caveator/respondent No.5.
3. For the reasons stated in the application-I.A No.2/2024, the
same is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
4. The appellant has challenged the order dated 10.06.2024
passed in W.P.No.24532/2023 (S-RES) as well as
R.P.No.542/2023.
5. Insofar as the appeal challenging the dismissal of the review
petition [ R.P. No. 542/2023 ] is concerned, we find no merit in the
same. The appellant had sought a review of the order dated
09.06.2023 passed in W.P.No.15062/2021(S-RES). However, it is
apparent that there were no sufficient reasons for review of the
NC: 2025:KHC:31904-DB
HC-KAR
order. The appellant had, essentially, sought to re-agitate the
issues, which were considered and decided. Thus, the review
petition was beyond the scope of the review petition.
6. Insofar as the appellant's challenge to the impugned order,
which relates to the respondent's petition being
W.P.No.24532/2023 is concerned, the only question to be
examined is whether respondent No.5 had fulfilled the eligibility
conditions for being appointed as a Library Supervisor. He had
produced a SSLC certificate, which reflected that he had cleared
his examination securing 49.12% marks and that his medium of
instruction was Kannada.
7. The learned Single Judge noted that, this clearly established
that respondent No.5 had satisfied the eligibility criteria. It is the
appellant's case that the eligibility criteria also required respondent
No.5 to establish that his medium of instruction from Class 1 to
Class 9 was Kannada. Respondent No.5 was considered to be
ineligible as he had not produced the requisite certificate from the
Headmaster, establishing that the medium of instructions from
Class 1 to Class 9 was Kannada.
NC: 2025:KHC:31904-DB
HC-KAR
8. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 has
handed over two certificates from the Headmaster: one certifying
that the medium of instruction from Class 1 to Class 7 as Kannada
and second certificate, certifying that his medium of instruction from
Class 8 to Class 10 was Kannada.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that
providing a certificate at this stage does not comply with the
notification as all certificates were to be provided at the requisite
stage.
10. The notification dated 07.10.2020, inviting applications for
appointment of a Library Supervisor, merely stated that the
candidates should have cleared the SSLC examination and that the
medium of instruction should be kannada. This condition stood
satisfied by respondent No.5 by producing the SSLC certificate,
which clearly indicated that the medium of instruction was
Kannada.
11. The contention that the appellant was additionally required to
produce certificate and that his medium of instruction from Class 1
to Class 9 was also Kannada is not persuasive. This is because
NC: 2025:KHC:31904-DB
HC-KAR
this additional requirement is not borne out by the notification.
However, respondent No.5 has also addressed the said issue by
producing the photocopies of certificates issued by the
Headmaster, clearly certifying that his medium of instruction from
Class 1 to Class 10 was Kannada.
12. The marks secured by respondent No.5 were higher than the
marks secured by the appellant (who had only secured 40.96%).
Respondent no. 5's standing in order of merit was higher than the
appellant. Thus, he was entitled to be appointed as a Library
Supervisor instead of the appellant.
13. In view of the above, we find no grounds to interfere with the
impugned order. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
14. Pending application is also disposed of.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
