Karnataka High Court
Vijayalaxmi Patil vs The Principal And Ors on 24 February, 2025
Author: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1249-DB
RP No.200025 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
REVIEW PETITION NO.200025 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
VIJAYALAXMI PATIL
D/O BASWANTH RAO PATIL
AGED AOBUT : 34 YEARS,
OCC: UNEMPLOYED
R/O: PATTAN VILLAGE,
TQ: DIST: KALABURAGI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAJA VENKATAPPA NAIK, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by AND:
BASALINGAPPA
SHIVARAJ
DHUTTARGAON 1. THE PRINCIPAL
Location: HIGH P.D.A. ENGINEERING COLLEGE,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA KALABURAGI - 585 102.
2. THE PRESIDENT
HYDERABAD KARNATAKA
EDUCATION SOCIETY,
KALABURAGI - 585 102.
3. DR. VIJAY HIREMATH
AGED ABOUT : 42 YEARS,
R/O: GODUTAI NAGAR,
KALABURAGI - 585 103.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1249-DB
RP No.200025 of 2018
4. THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION,
PLACE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.
5. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.
6. THE LAW SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND JUSTICE
VIDHAN SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ASHOK B. MULAGE, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI AMARESH S. ROJA, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY, G.A. FOR R5 AND R6;
NOTICE TO R4 IS SERVED)
THIS REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47
RULE 1 OF CPC READ WITH SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO
ALLOW THE REVIEW PETITION, SETTING ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 27.03.2014 PASSED
BY THE HON'BLE DIVISION BENCH OF THE HON'BLE HIGH
COURT OF KARNATAKA AT KALABURAGI BENCH DISMISSING
WRIT APPEAL NO.50354/2013, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
THIS REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1249-DB
RP No.200025 of 2018
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV)
The present review petition has been filed by the
appellant in the writ proceedings.
2. Smt. Vijayalaxmi Patil, the present petitioner had
filed W.A.No. 50354/2013, calling in question the
correctness of the order passed in W.P.No.8747/2008. The
said writ petition was filed by Smt. Vijayalaxmi Patil
challenging the order of appointment of Dr. Vijay
Hiremath. The said writ petition came to be rejected.
3. The grounds raised in the said writ petition was
that the said selected candidate Dr. Vijay Hiremath was
aged beyond the permissible limit as on the date of the
application and he was beyond the age of 35 years which
was the stipulated as the benchmark. It was also
submitted that Smt. Vijayalaxmi Patil, was better qualified
and had better credentials.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1249-DB
4. The learned Single Judge after a detailed
consideration, took note that there was a provision for
relaxation of age where the candidate possessed teaching
experience and accordingly, refused to interfere with the
order of selection. The said order was taken in appeal in
W.A.No. 50354/2013 and the appeal was filed after the
delay of 1868 days.
5. The Division Bench had rejected the appeal on the
ground that there was no explanation to condone the
inordinate delay of more than 5 years. The matter was
taken up before the Apex Court and the SLP came to be
rejected.
6. The present review petition has been filed seeking
review of the judgment passed in W.A.No. 50354/2013. It
is submitted that mere dismissal of the SLP would not
come in the way of entertaining the review petition.
7. Insofar as the maintainability of the review
petition, we are of the view that the review petition would
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1249-DB
be maintainable even after the dismissal of SLP. We have
also perused the order of the learned Single which was
challenged in writ appeal. The learned Single Judge had
observed that the maximum age limit fixed could be
relaxed in appropriate circumstances depending upon the
teaching experience. We are of the view that the said
aspect may have weighed in the mind of the Court while
dismissing the writ appeal on delay.
8. Though various contentions are raised relating to
the ineligibility of Dr. Vijay Hiremath to hold the post,
noticing that the appointment of the said selected
candidate was in the year 2008 and we are presently more
than 16 years after such order of appointment. We are of
the view that any interference in the order of selection at
this stage would cause undue hardship. We find that there
are no grounds made out for entertaining the review
petition. Though the learned counsel submits that a
direction may be passed to consider the candidature of the
petitioner as the respondent - Institution has many
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1249-DB
Institutions and petitioner could be accommodated,
however, taking note of the age of the petitioner, we are
not inclined to consider any such request.
9. Accordingly, the review petition is rejected.
I.A.2/2018 filed for delay in filing the review petition is
allowed and delay condoned.
Sd/-
(S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
VP
