Karnataka High Court
Sri. Chandranaik vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 February, 2025
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:6322-DB
WP No. 8835 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
WRIT PETITION NO. 8835 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
SRI. CHANDRANAIK
S/O GOVINDA NAIK
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/O BEERANAHALLI
MATTIGHATTA POST
KADUR TALUK
CHIKKAMANGALURU DISTRICT-577 548
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GOPALAKRISHNAMURTHY C, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Digitally signed by R/BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
MOUNESHWARAPPA
NAGARATHNA HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
Location: HIGH
COURT OF M.S.BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
KARNATAKA
BENGALURU DISTRICT-560 001
2. THE COMMISSIONER
COLLEGIATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
SHESHADRI ROAD
BENGALURU DISTRICT-560 001
3. THE KARNATAKA EXAMINATION AUTHORITY
R/BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
SAMPIGE RAOD, 18TH CROSS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:6322-DB
WP No. 8835 of 2024
MALLESHWARAM
BENGALURU DISTRICT-560 001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. N.K. RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF
CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY
THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
AT BENGALURU IN APPLICATION No.33/2024 DATED
23.01.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-A CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE
APPLICATION No.33/2024 FILED BY THE PETITIONER VIDE
ANNEXURE-B DATED 11.12.2023 IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:6322-DB
WP No. 8835 of 2024
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR)
This Writ Petition is directed against the order passed by
the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (in
short `the Tribunal') in Application No.33/2024 dated
23.01.20204.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Shri
Gopalakrishnamurthy C so also Shri Vikas Rojipura, learned
AGA for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Shri N.K.Ramesh, learned
Advocate is on record for Respondent No.3.
3. The petitioner herein had approached the Tribunal
in Application No.33/2024 with a prayer to set aside the
Govt.Order dated 26.08.2020 and Endorsements dated
16.09.2023 (Annexures A14 and A23) in so far as petitioner is
concerned and to direct the respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein to
issue appointment order of Assistant Professor (Computer
Science) in First Grade Government College and also sought for
a direction to grant all consequential benefits. The Tribunal,
after referring to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
rejected the application by order dated 23.01.2024 which is
NC: 2025:KHC:6322-DB
under challenge in this writ petition. The operative portion of
which reads as under:
"...In view of the discussions above, we are of
the considered view that this Application is not
tenable for consideration on merits due to
Limitation applicable to the impugned order
dated 26.08.2020 that is unsupported by any
interlocutory Application for condonation of
delay, lack of challenge to the Select list and
non-joinder of person likely to be affected by
the claim of the applicant for inclusion in the
select list and deletion from the impugned
select list and hence the Application is
accordingly, dismissed."
4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 26.8.2024 vide
Annexure-A14 by which claim of the petitioner for consideration
of his candidature for the post of Assistant Professor in
Government First Grade Colleges, has been rejected on the
ground that he does not possess the requisite qualification for
the post of Assistant Professor. In the aforesaid proceedings,
an issue relating to limitation period had been considered
stating that the challenge to the order is hit by Limitation even
considering the relaxation in the Limitation Period from
NC: 2025:KHC:6322-DB
15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court on account of Covid Pandemic. The limitation in this case
ends on 28.02.2023 while this Application has been filed on
03.01.2024 i.e. more than 10 months after the limitation period
has been exhausted in this case after providing allowance for
the relief granted by the Hon'ble Supreme court. It is observed
in the impugned order of the Tribunal that no application for
condonation of delay has been filed in this case in respect of
the challenge to the impugned order dated 26.08.2020 and also
there is no challenge to the final select list per se and no
person who is affected by the claim of the applicant for
selection has been arraigned as a party in the Application.
5. The order rendered by the Tribunal referred to the
case of Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd., vs.
K.Thangappa 1 and similarly referred the judgment in C.Jacob
vs. Director of Geology and Mining2. The Tribunal, taking
into consideration the above ratio laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has specifically stated in para.6 as under:
(2006) 4 SCC 322
(2008) 10 SCC 115
NC: 2025:KHC:6322-DB
"Thus, it is settled that mere consideration
of representation on the directions of the Hon'ble
High Court does not cure the Limitation involved
in the consideration of the stale claim of the
applicant as in this case. We reiterate that no
Application for condonation of delay too has been
filed in this case and on the contrary there is a
declaration in the Application that the Application
is filed within the Limitation prescribed under
Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals act,
1985 on the ground that he is challenging the
endorsement dated 16.09.2023 without any
reference to the prayer for quashing of the
impugned order dated 26.08.2020 that is
explicitly mentioned in para 1 of the Application -
Particulars of the orders against which the
Application is made and also para 6 of the
Application - Relief sought, thus making the
submission in para 2 of the Application to be
blatantly incorrect both on facts and law.
6. Thus, the Tribunal rejected the application filed by
the petitioner herein. In this writ petition, it is contended by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that the challenge was made
before this Court to the endorsement dated 16.09.2023
wherein the request of the petitioner for the post of Assistant
Professor has been rejected by observing that it covers the
NC: 2025:KHC:6322-DB
impugned order and the endorsement has been issued with
regard to the directions of this Court in WP No.1840/2023 to
consider the representation of the petitioner within an outer
limit of eight weeks from the date of receipt of that order. The
learned counsel for the petitioner by memo dated 12.02.2025
has produced the true copy of the Writ Petition in
No.1840/2023.
7. The Tribunal, keeping in view of the aforesaid ratio
after discussing relating to the materials on record, arrived at
the conclusion that application is not tenable for consideration
even on merits due to limitation applicable to the impugned
order dated 28.6.2020 i.e. unsupported by interlocutory
application for condonation of delay, lack of challenge to the
select list and non-joinder of person/s likely to be affected by
the claim of the applicant for inclusion in the select list and
ultimately, dismissed the application.
8. Under this writ petition, the learned counsel for the
petitioner urged various grounds and also sought for
intervention of this Court contending that if this Court does not
intervenes and sets aside the orders rendered by the Tribunal,
NC: 2025:KHC:6322-DB
there shall be violation of Doctrine of "Audi Alteram Partem" i.e.
"let the other party be heard." According to this principle, all parties
to a dispute should be allowed to be heard and present their case.
In other words, the principle asserts that no party should be
condemned unheard. Each party has the right to a fair hearing in
any dispute. The petitioner herein being the Graduate in
Engineering (Computer Science) Post Graduate in Master of
Technology (Digital Communication and Networking) should not
be deprived of his right to employment merely on the ground of
delay. Further the applicant, while availing the remedy before
the Tribunal urged various grounds and also produced the
impugned notification issued by respondent no.3 vide
Annexure-A1 and several documents have been produced i.e. A
to A23. The said documents were required to be considered
by the Tribunal while rendering the impugned order but, only
on the limitation point, the application has been dismissed
without looking into all these materials.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently
urges that if this Court declines to intervene in this matter,
NC: 2025:KHC:6322-DB
there shall be miscarriage of justice. Hence, he strenuously
urges to set aside the impugned order.
10. The order sheet maintained in the aforesaid
application i.e. OA 33/2023 dated 4.1.2024 states, "Heard the
learned counsel for the applicant/s on the point of
limitation in respect of prayer No.1. Reserved for orders
on the point of limitation." and thereafter, the aforesaid
impugned order has been rendered by the Tribunal without
giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to establish
his case relating to the contentious stance taken in the
aforesaid proceeding initiated keeping in view the provision of
Section 19 of Karnataka State Tribunals Act, 1985.
Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner in this
matter seeking for consideration of grounds in this writ petition
and sought for setting aside the orders rendered by the
Tribunal in the said application.
11. On the contrary, learned AGA submits that the
opportunity has been given to the petitioner herein, applicant
has initiated proceedings under Section 19 of Administrative
Tribunals Act, 1985 and the same has been indicated in the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6322-DB
order sheet maintained but, the application has been disposed
of on merits by the Tribunal. The learned AGA also submits that
the impugned order is also supported by the order sheet
maintained by the Tribunal relating to disposal of the matter on
limitation point. Therefore, no interference is called for in this
writ petition.
12. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned
counsel for the petitioner and equally the submission made by
learned AGA. It is undisputed that, proceedings have been
initiated by the petitioner under Sec.19 of the Tribunals Act and
ended in the impugned order only on the limitation point. In
view of the contentions raised by the petitioner and the
application having been dismissed on the ground of limitation,
if an opportunity is given to the petitioner to put forth his plea
before the Tribunal by producing the relevant documents to
address the issue between the applicant and the respondents, it
would meet the ends of justice. In the event of petitioner
approaching the Tribunal again, the Tribunal shall consider the
application as well as the documents produced by him keeping
in view of Doctrine of Audi Alteram Partem. Thus,, we deem it
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6322-DB
appropriate to set aside impugned order rendered by the
Tribunal considering the grounds urged in this writ petition.
13. In view of our above reasons and findings, we
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The Writ Petition filed under Art.226 of
the Constitution of India is hereby
allowed.
ii) Consequently, the order passed by the
Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal
in Application No.33/2023 dated
23.1.2024 is hereby set aside.
iii) Consequent upon setting aside of the
orders rendered by the Karnataka State
Administrative Tribunal, matter is
remitted back to the Karnataka State
Administrative Tribunal for giving an
opportunity to the petitioner to produce
the documents in support of his case and
on hearing both parties, dispose of the
matter in accordance with law.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6322-DB
iv) However, in view of the peculiar facts
and circumstances, it is made clear that,
all contentions are kept open. However
the limitation point is concerned and also
application filed under Section 19 of the
Tribunals Act, 1985 are concerned, if the
petitioner makes an application to
consider the grounds of limitation, the
same may be considered on merits in
accordance with law.
v) The period spent in disposal of this
writ petition may also be considered while
disposing of the application to be filed by
the petitioner.
Sd/-
(K.SOMASHEKAR)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
Sk/-
