Karnataka High Court
Sri.M. Illyas S/O Ibrahimsab Sarpanch vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 June, 2025
Author: R.Devdas
Bench: R.Devdas
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7719-DB
WA No.100628 of 2017
C/W WP No.102913 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
WRIT APPEAL NO.100628 OF 2017 (S-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.102913 OF 2018 (S-KAT)
IN WRIT APPEAL NO.100628 OF 2017:
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
R/BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF RURAL WELFARE &
PANCHAYATH RAJ, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU.
2. THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF RURAL WELFARE &
PANCHAYATH RAJ, M.S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU-01.
- APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA)
MOHANKUMAR
B SHELAR
AND:
Digitally signed by
MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR
Location: High Court of
1. M. ILIYAS S/O. IBRAHIMSAB SARPANCH
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: JUNIOR ENGINEER,
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2025.06.19 11:15:51
+0530
ADD: MULLARWADI KUSTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL.
2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
ZILLA PANCHAYATH, KOPPAL.
- RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAYA S. HALLIKERI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. BHUSHAN B. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED 22.02.2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN
W.P.NO.101343/2016 & ETC.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7719-DB
WA No.100628 of 2017
C/W WP No.102913 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN WRIT PETITION NO.102913 OF 2018:
BETWEEN:
SRI. M. ILLYAS S/O IBRAHIMSAB SARPANCH
AGE: 55 YEARS, WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER,
AT THE OFFICE OF PANCHAYATH RAJ
ENGINEERING SUB-DIVISION,
KUSHTAGI TALUK, R/AT: MULLARWDI,
KUSHTAGI, KOPPAL DISTRICT.
- PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAYA S. HALLIKERI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
R/BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND
PANCHAYATH RAJ DEPARTMENT,
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA R/BY ITS REGISTRAR,
M.S. BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001.
3. THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF ENQUIRIES-4,
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001.
- RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. SANTOSH B. MALAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 13.11.2017 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU IN APPLICATION
NO.6517/2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-L IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY AND ETC.
THE WRIT APPEAL AND THE WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR
FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED
THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7719-DB
WA No.100628 of 2017
C/W WP No.102913 of 2018
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS)
Since we are dealing with a Writ Appeal filed at the
hands of the State Government and a Writ Petition filed by
the respondent in the Writ Appeal and the grievance in
both the cases arise from an action sought to be taken by
the State as against the respondent, both these cases are
clubbed, heard together and are being disposed of by this
common judgment.
2. The brief background is required to be given to
understand as to why and how these two cases have come
up for consideration before this Court. For the sake of
convenience we will address the parties as 'the appellant-
State of Karnataka' and 'the respondent-Mr. M. Iliyas'.
3. The respondent was appointed as Junior Engineer in
the Rural Development and Panchayathraj Department on
01.10.1995, on contract basis. Subsequently on
01.10.2005 his services were regularized. However on a
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7719-DB
HC-KAR
complaint given by the respondent's cousin brother on
19.02.2014 with the Lokayuktha, the Lokayuktha
submitted a report u/S 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayuktha
Act, to the Government, prima facie finding that the
allegations against the respondent is that at the time of
his appointment in the year 1995 the respondent did not
have the requisite educational qualification to be appointed
as Junior Engineer. Pursuant thereto an order was passed
by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Koppal, on
25.01.2016 demoting the respondent from the post of
Junior Engineer to Second Division Clerk, having regard to
the educational qualification, that the respondent had only
passed S.S.L.C. and therefore he was eligible to be
regularized in the post of Second Division Clerk.
4. The petitioner filed W.P. No. 101343/2016 calling in
question the said order dated 25.01.2016 whereby he was
demoted to the post of Second Division Clerk. The learned
Single Judge found that although it is true that the
petitioner had passed S.S.L.C. when he was appointed on
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7719-DB
HC-KAR
contract basis to the post of Junior Engineer, nevertheless
the respondent obtained a Diploma Certificate at the
hands of the Board of Technical Examination on
28.01.2005. The learned Single Judge held that although
it may be true that the petitioner had only S.S.L.C.
qualification in the year 1994 when he was appointed on
contract basis, nevertheless for more than 24 years the
petitioner has served as a Junior Engineer and in the
meanwhile he has obtained Diploma Certificate and
therefore it would not be just and proper to permit the
demotion of the respondent. The State of Karnataka has
filed this Writ Appeal questioning the order passed by the
learned Single Judge.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out
that the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat, who had
passed the order of demotion, in fact, is arraigned as
respondent in these proceedings at the hands of the State
Government.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7719-DB
HC-KAR
6. The respondent, in the meanwhile approached the
Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, being aggrieved
of the order of entrustment of enquiry dated 02.07.20116
and the issuance of the Article of Charges dated
07.09.2016. The Tribunal however dismissed the
application on the ground that when admittedly the
petitioner did not have the requisite qualification to be
appointed as Junior Engineer in the year 1995, there is
ample material on record to establish acts of fraud and
suppression of facts at the hands of the respondent
herein. The respondent, aggrieved of the order of
rejection of the application at the hands of the Tribunal,
has filed W.P. No. 102913/2018.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit
that when the respondent was appointed as Junior
Engineer in 1994, in his application he had written that he
had appeared for Diploma in Civil Engineering
Examination. Furthermore, attention of this Court is
drawn to the Government Order bearing No. ¹C¸ÀÄE 17
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7719-DB
HC-KAR
¸É.¸À.C 94, Bengaluru dated 20.10.1994, which was holding
the field at the time of the appointment of the respondent.
8. It is pointed out that in the Government Order it is
directed that while regularizing the services of daily
wagers and contract employees who have put in a
minimum of ten years of service and a minimum of 240
days in an year, it should be ensured that such persons
meet the requisite qualification of having served for a
minimum of ten years and that they possess the minimum
educational qualification for the said post as on the date of
regularization of their services. Further, attention of this
Court is also drawn to order dated 04.01.2006 at
Annexure-A when the services of the respondent along
with many other persons were regularized. In Annexure-1,
it is pointed out that name of the respondent is found at
Sl. No. 6 and educational qualification is shown as Diploma
in Civil Engineering while taking into consideration the
initial appointment as 01.10.1992 and completion of ten
years as on 30.09.2002. However a modified order is
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7719-DB
HC-KAR
passed on 10.01.2006 at the hands of the Chief Executive
Officer of the Zilla Panchayat at Annexure-B rectifying the
date of entry into service as 01.10.1995 and completion of
the period of ten years as on 30.09.2005 and
regularization of the services on 01.10.2005.
9. Learned counsel submits that the factum of the
respondent obtaining the Diploma in Civil Engineering
during November 2004 has been taken into consideration
and not only in respect of the respondent but many other
such persons. The list at Annexure-1 contains names of
23 such other persons and it has been clarified in the
preamble of the order that persons at Sl. No. 6, 12, 13,
20, 21 and 22 obtained the requisite educational
qualification at a later stage and therefore their date of
entry into service is accordingly modified to ensure that as
on the date of regularization they have requisite
educational qualification.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7719-DB
HC-KAR
10. Learned counsel would therefore submit that all
these aspects have been considered by the Chief Executive
Officer of the Zilla Panchayat and the State Government
having satisfied itself, issued necessary direction to the
Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Panchayat to proceed
accordingly and the modified orders have been passed by
the Chief Executive Officer six days after the original order
of regularization was issued on 04.01.2006.
11. Learned counsel would further submit that at the
instance of the respondent's cousin brother, who is
enemically disposed towards the respondent, such an
action could not have been initiated by the respondents to
demote the petitioner from the post of Junior Engineer to
the Second Division Clerk.
12. Learned counsel would submit, insofar as the
entrustment of enquiry at the hands of the Lokayuktha,
that the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka
and Others Vs. Kempaiah reported in (1998) 6 SCC
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7719-DB
HC-KAR
103 has considered the scope and purport of the
Lokayuktha to investigate the action, allegation and
grievance as defined in sub Section (1), (2) and (8) of
Sec. 2 of the Karnataka Lokayuktha Act, while considering
Sec. 2(1) which reads as follows:
"The definition of the word "action" in Section 2(1)
indicates that it encompasses administrative action taken
in any form whether by way of recommendation or
finding or "in any other manner", e.g., granting licences
or privileges, awarding contract, distributing government
land under statutory rules or otherwise or withholding
decision on any manner etec. The expression "in any
other manner" takes it in fold the last mentioned
categories of administrative actions. The expression "in
any other manner" contains general words which
construed literally, should receive their full and natural
meaning but when they follow specific and particular
words of the same genus, it will be presumed that the
legislature has used the general words in a limited sense
to convey the meaning implied by specific and particular
words. This follows from application of the rule of
ejusdem generis. In the definition of action, the
expression "in any other manner" follows "decision",
"recommendation" or "finding". So it connotes other
categories of administrative action; it cannot be
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7719-DB
HC-KAR
interpreted to mean actions which have no nexus to any
administrative action."
It was also held that the definition indicates that it
encompasses administrative action taken in any form
whether by way of recommendation or finding or that in
any other manner of the example-granting licence or
privilege, awarding contract, distributing government land
under statutory rules or otherwise or withholding decision
of any matter, etc. It was held that the expression "in any
other manner" takes in its fold the last mentioned
categories of administrative actions. The Apex Court also
noticed the definition of the word "allegation" as contained
in Sec. 2(2) which is couched in very wider terms, but as
noticed above, for purpose of Sec. 7(2), the scope of
investigation is confined to a grievance or allegation made
in respect of an action within the meaning of Sec. 2(1) of
the Act.
13. The Apex Court noticed the definition of the word
"action" as defined therein would mean the administrative
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7719-DB
HC-KAR
action taken by way of decision, recommendation or
finding or in any other manner and includes willful failure
or omission to act and other expression relating to such
action shall be construed accordingly.
14. The learned counsel would therefore submit that it is
plain and clear from the decision rendered by the Apex
Court that the Lokayuktha is permitted to investigate only
a matter pertaining to 'administrative action' on the part of
an officer/ civil servant. However in a matter of such
nature where the allegation is in respect of the conduct of
the officer at the time of his recruitment would definitely
not partake the nature of an 'administrative action' as
defined therein. No doubt, the State Government or the
employer is entitled to take action against such persons
who have obtained appointment by furnishing false or
fabricated documents. However it will be out of the
purview of the Lokayuktha to enquire into such matters,
since admittedly such conduct does not partake the nature
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7719-DB
HC-KAR
of administrative action as defined in the Karnataka
Lokayuktha Act.
15. Learned counsel for the Lokayuktha would submit
that there are catena of decisions which clearly hold that
delinquent officer is not entitled to question such action on
the part of the Lokayuktha, since it would be premature to
question the same at this juncture.
16. Learned AGA would also submit that when admittedly
the respondent did not have the requisite qualification at
the time of his appointment in the year 1992, and that the
respondent admittedly obtained the degree during
November, 2004, the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla
Panchayat was duty bound to take note of the same and
take action in accordance with law.
17. Having heard the learned AGA, the learned counsel
for the respondent-Lokayuktha and the contesting
respondent, we find that the Chief Executive Officer failed
to take note of the Government Order dated 20.10.1994.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7719-DB
HC-KAR
The State Government cannot dispute the fact that the
said Government Order dated 20.10.1994 was holding the
field even in the year 2004 which clearly provides that a
person should have the requisite educational qualification
as on the date of regularization of the services.
18. In fact, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel
for the contesting respondents, Annexure-A order dated
04.01.2006, by virtue of the Chief Executive Officer
regularized the services of the contesting respondent and
many other persons, bears reference to the Government
Order dated 20.10.1994. However while passing the order
of demotion the Chief Executive Officer has failed to look
into the Government Order. Therefore, as on the date of
regularization of the services, the contesting respondent
had requisite educational qualification. In fact the
Principal Secretary of the R.D.P.R. had communicated to
the Chief Executive officer on 20.10.2015 at annexure-G
that the question raised regarding the educational
qualification and regularization of services of the
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7719-DB
HC-KAR
contesting respondent was considered and had clearly
directed that the matter stands closed. Nevertheless the
Chief Executive Officer passed the impugned order on
25.01.2016 demoting the contesting respondent from the
post of Junior Engineer to the post of Second Division
Clerk, which was uncalled for.
19. We are also of the considered opinion that the
entrustment of the enquiry in this regard, not being an
administrative action on the part of the contesting
respondent, during his services, could not have been
entrusted to the Lokayuktha, since it is beyond the scope
and object of the Karnataka Lokayuktha Act, to go into
such grievances which arise during the recruitment of an
employee. Further, since this Court has also opined that
the regularization of services of the contesting respondent
is in accordance with law, no further enquiry at the hands
of the State Government or the Lokayuktha can continue.
20. We proceed to pass the following:
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7719-DB
HC-KAR
ORDER
(i) The Writ Appeal filed by the State Government
is dismissed;
(ii) The Writ Petition filed by Mr.Iliyas is allowed
while setting aside the order of entrustment of
enquiry dated 02.07.2016, the Articles of
Charges dated 07.09.20116 and the impugned
order dated 13.11.2017 passed by the
Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal in
Application No. 6517/2017. Ordered
accordingly.
Sd/-
(R.DEVDAS)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(K V ARAVIND)
JUDGE
BVV, CT:VP
