Karnataka High Court
Sharanabasappa S/O Murgeppa Biradar vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 30 June, 2025
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3505-DB
WA No. 200137 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K S HEMALEKHA
WRIT APPEAL NO.200137 OF 2021 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SHARANABASAPPA
S/O MURGEPPA BIRADAR,
AGE: 34 YEARS,
OCC: CLERK CUM DATA ENTRY OPERATOR
GRAM PANCHAYAT OFFICE, NAGOOR,
TQ: DIST: KALABURAGI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. HEMA L. KULAKARNI, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by AND:
KHAJAAMEEN
MALAGHAN
Location: HIGH 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
COURT OF BY ITS SECRETARY
KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ
VIDHAN SOUDHA,
DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
ZILLA PANCHAYAT, KALABURAGI,
ZP OFFICE, JAGAT CIRCLE,
KALABURAGI - 585 101.
3. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
TALUKA PANCHAYAT KALABURAGI,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3505-DB
WA No. 200137 of 2021
HC-KAR
TALUKA PANCHAYAT OFFICE,
AIWAN-E-SHAHI, KALABURAGI - 585 101.
4. THE GRAM PANCHAYAT NAGOOR
VILLAGE NAGOOR,
TQ: DIST: KALABURAGI - 585 322
BY ITS PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
5. RAJKUMAR
S/O BASAVARAJ GUDAGI
AGE: 35 YEARS,
R/O: VILLAGE NAGOOR,
TQ: DIST: KALABURAGI - 585 322.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY-GA FOR R1;
SRI. ANANTH S. JAHAGIRDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. ARUNKUMAR AMARGUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R3 &
R4; SRI. MAHADEV S. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R5)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT 1961, PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE AND TO ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION
NO.203383/2019 DATED:13.08.2021, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
AND
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K S HEMALEKHA
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3505-DB
WA No. 200137 of 2021
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)
This intra Court appeal is preferred against the order
dated 13.08.2021 passed in W.P.No.203383/2019,
wherein the learned Single Judge has dismissed the said
writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 08.07.2019
bearing No.GIPAKA/DRDM/GRAPAN/2019-20/178 issued
by respondent No.2, at Annexure-D to the writ petition.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for
appellant and respondents.
3. Respondent No.5 herein was appointed as a
Computer Operator on contractual basis at Gram
Panchayat, Nagoor in the year 2007. On the ground of
alleged absenteeism, his service was terminated vide
resolution dated 13.11.2013 and the appellant herein was
appointed as Computer operator on contractual basis. The
said resolution was challenged before the Zilla Panchayat,
who after conducting an enquiry, annulled the order and
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3505-DB
HC-KAR
directed that the service of respondent No.5 be continued
in the Gram Panchayat, Nagoor Village, Nagore.
4. Learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ
petition, observed that once respondent No.5 was
appointed on contractual basis, he could not have been
unilaterally removed from service and there was no
material to show that he was notified prior to his removal.
Further observed that even otherwise, the removal on the
ground of absenteeism from work was stigmatic and
therefore, he should have been heard. The law declared
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana
and others v. Piara Singh and others reported in
(1992) 4 SCC 118 was pressed into service to hold that
once respondent No.5 was appointed on contractual basis,
he could not have been replaced by another contractual
employee.
5. We don't find any error in the reasons assigned
by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ
petition.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3505-DB
HC-KAR
6. The learned counsel appearing for respondent
Nos.3 and 4 would submit on instructions that respondent
Nos.3 & 4 are ready to appoint the appellant as a
computer operator and respondent No.5 will be appointed
as pump operator.
7. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 would
submit that the said respondent has accepted the offer
and has no objection to the proposed arrangement.
8. The aforementioned arrangement shall be
completed within a period of two months, as agreed by
respondent Nos.3 and 4.
With the above observation, writ appeal is disposed
of.
Sd/-
(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(K S HEMALEKHA)
JUDGE
HB
CT:NI
