Karnataka High Court
Basappa vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 23 September, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5755-DB
WP No. 201537 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
WRIT PETITION NO.201537 OF 2024 (S-KAT)
BETWEEN:
BASAPPA
S/O YENKAMMA,
AGED ABOUT:45 YEARS,
OCC: BILL COLLECTOR,
PAGADADINNI CAMP,
GRAM PANCHAYAT,
RAICHUR, DIST: RAICHUR.
R/O: PAGADADINNI CAMP,
SINDHANUR, DIST: RAICHUR - 584 128.
NOW RESIDING AT
Digitally signed R/O: MULLUR (E.J.) VILLAGE,
by NIJAMUDDIN TALUK: SINDHANUR,
JAMKHANDI
Location: HIGH
DIST: RAICHUR - 584 128.
COURT OF ...PETITIONER
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT &
PANCHAYAT RAJ, M.S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5755-DB
WP No. 201537 of 2024
HC-KAR
2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
ZILLA PANCHAYAT, RAICHUR,
DIST: RAICHUR - 584 101.
3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY,
ZILLA PANCHAYAT, RAICHUR,
DIST: RAICHUR - 584 101.
4. YAMANURAPPA S/O BASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
OCC: BILL COLLECTOR,
GRAM PANCHAYAT NAGARAL,
TALUK: LINGASUGUR,
DIST: RAICHUR - 584 127.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY, GA FOR R1;
SRI GOURISH S. KHASHAMPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3;
SRI MAHESH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 29.05.2024 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT KALABURAGI IN APPLICATION
NO.20743/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-C.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 11.09.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
'PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER', THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THEFOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5755-DB
WP No. 201537 of 2024
HC-KAR
CAV ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)
Heard Sri Mahantesh Patil, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Sri.Mallikarjun C.Basareddy, learned
Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1, Sri
Gourish S.Khashampur, learned counsel appearing for
respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Sri Mahesh Patil, learned
counsel appearing for caveator/respondent No.4.
2. This writ petition is filed praying to issue writ of
certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 29.05.2024
passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at
Kalaburagi (for short, 'the Tribunal') in Application
No.20743/2023 and issue such other writ or order or
direction as this Court deems just and proper under the
facts and circumstances of the case.
3. Respondent No.4 herein filed the application
before the Tribunal praying to quash the order dated
18.08.2023 passed by respondent No.3 in No.ZPR/C-
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5755-DB
WP No. 201537 of 2024
HC-KAR
2/GPK-DviDLe/NMK/E-19269/23-24/1477 at Annexure-
A11 and to direct respondent No.3 to appoint him as
Panchayat Secretary Grade-II retrospectively and grant all
consequential benefits.
4. Factual matrix of the case of respondent No.4
before the Tribunal is that he was appointed as Bill
Collector in Raichur Zilla Panchayat on 24.04.2007 and
likewise, the petitioner herein was appointed on
05.10.2006. Respondent No.4 submitted his application in
the requisite proforma for appointing him as Panchayat
Secretary Grade-II/Second Divisional Account Assistant in
terms of the notification dated 19.09.2022 issued by the
Raichur Zilla Panchayat. Respondent No.3 who is the
appointing authority published the provisional selection list
on 03.02.2023 for appointment to the post of Panchayat
Secretary Grade-II/Second Divisional Account Assistant
wherein the name of respondent No.4 appeared in the said
list under SC (Rural) quota as he submitted his willingness
to be appointed for the said post. When things stood thus,
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5755-DB
WP No. 201537 of 2024
HC-KAR
another provisional selection list was published by
respondent No.3 on 20.07.2023 by selecting the petitioner
under SC (Rural) quota by omitting the name of
respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 immediately submitted
his objections on 24.07.2023 to respondent No.3 stating
that the petitioner is selected under the rural quota and he
has studied at Venkateshwar High School in Sindhanoor
which comes under the urban area as stipulated under the
Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 or the
Karnataka Municipal Act, 1964. As such, respondent No.4
submitted that since the petitioner has not studied in the
rural area, he ought not to have been selected under the
rural quota in his place. Thereafter, respondent No.4
submitted representation to respondent No.3 and to even
to the Block Education Officer, Sindhanur Taluk (for short,
'BEO'). It is contended in the application that on
07.08.2023, the Municipal Commissioner clarified to the
BEO that Sindhanur City Municipal Council (for short,
'CMC') was upgraded as Town Municipality from
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5755-DB
WP No. 201537 of 2024
HC-KAR
30.12.2006 and the said place will not come under the
rural area. It is further sated that respondent No.3 without
considering the objection of respondent No.4 proceeded to
issue appointment order to the petitioner on 18.08.2023.
It is also contended that after issuance of notice, the
petitioner has filed his objection contending that he was
appointed as Bill Collector on 05.10.2006 in Gram
Panchayat Pagadadinni, Sindhanur Taluk, Raichur District.
Respondent No.4 was appointed as Bill Collector on
24.04.2007 in Gram Panchayat, Nagaral, Lingasugur
Taluk, Raichur District. Respondent No.4 has filed his
objection to the provisional selection list selecting the
petitioner under SC (Rural) quota. In view of the
objections filed by respondent No.4, the recruiting
authority has directed the concerned authorities for
verification of the genuinity of the certificate issued for
claiming rural quota. The BEO, Sindhanur, after verifying
and receiving the information from the concerned
Municipality, Sindhanur Town, submitted report on
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5755-DB
WP No. 201537 of 2024
HC-KAR
09.08.2023. It is specifically stated that the petitioner has
studied 8th class to 10th class from the academic year 1988
to 1991 and as per the 1991 census, Sindhnaur Town's
population was 9455 which is below 50,000 population.
The report further referred to the Circular dated
30.05.1996 wherein it is stated that the person studied
from 1st standard to 10th standard in a place of population
below 50,000 is entitled for claiming reservation under
Rural category and further, relied upon the notification
dated 22.01.2001 of the Karnataka Reservation of
Appointment of Posts (in the Civil Services of the post) for
Rural Candidates Act, 2000 (for short, 'the Act of 2000')
which reads as 'a rural candidate is a person who has
studied and passed SSLC examination in any of the
schools situated in rural area having population of less
than 20,000 as per 1981 census and the population less
than 50,000 as per the 1991 census. The information
received from the Commissioner Municipalities, Sindhanur,
as per reference No.8, the Sindhanur Municipality was
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5755-DB
WP No. 201537 of 2024
HC-KAR
upgraded on 30.12.2006 as CMC. Therefore, it is
contended that the impugned order came to be passed
after receiving the report dated 04.08.2023 from the BEO.
Hence, the petitioner sought to dismiss the application.
5. The Tribunal after hearing the petitioner and
respondent No.4 by its order dated 29.05.2024 allowed
the application and quashed the impugned endorsement
dated 18.08.2023 and directed respondent No.2 to
consider the case of respondent No.4 to the post of
Panchayat Secretary Grade-II. The Tribunal has also
directed the Principal Secretary, Education Department to
take action against the then BEO. Hence, it is contended
that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is
erroneous and unconstitutional. Therefore, the petitioner
has invoked the writ jurisdiction by filing the writ petition.
6. The main contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioner is that the order passed by the Tribunal is
illegal and arbitrary. The Tribunal has failed to consider
that the respondent authorities issued Form-II stating that
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5755-DB
WP No. 201537 of 2024
HC-KAR
rural category and Sindhanur was not within the area of
'Larger Urban Area' or 'Smaller Urban Area' or Transitional
Area'. Therefore, unless the validity of Form-II issued by
the competent authority is examined, setting aside of
Annexure-A11 is unsustainable in law. The Tribunal is not
having jurisdiction to consider and deal with the issuance
of rural certificate. The order passed by the Tribunal
quashing Annexure-A11 is erroneous.
7. Learned counsel vehemently contended that the
petitioner has studied 8th standard to 10th standard from
03.06.1988 to 10.04.1991 at Venkateshwara High School,
Sindhanur. As per the 1991 Census, Sindhanur had
population of 9445. Therefore, according to Sections 3 and
9 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, it was not
eligible for receiving notification for upgrading as 'Larger
Urban Area' or 'Smaller Urban Area' or 'Transitional Area'
and there is notification issued under the Municipalities
Act. Therefore, the Tribunal committed an error in not
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5755-DB
WP No. 201537 of 2024
HC-KAR
appreciating the purpose and object of prescribing
population in the government circulars.
8. Learned counsel also contended that in the
absence of declaration of a 'Rural Area' into 'Transitional
Area' by the government under the Municipal laws, the
characteristic of rural area would not change and there is
no provision to treat the area as deemed Municipal Area
without there being any change. Learned counsel also
brought to the notice of this Court Section 2 of the Act of
2000 which defines that 'Rural Candidate' means a
candidate, who has studied from 1st standard to 10th
standard where the qualifying examination prescribed for a
post is SSLC or higher; or from 1st standard to qualifying
examination where the qualifying examination prescribed
for a post is lower than SSLC, in a school situated in any
area other than a larger urban area, smaller urban area or
transitional area specified under the Karnataka Municipal
Corporations Act, 1976 or the Karnataka Municipalities Act,
1964. Therefore, the reliance made by the Tribunal on
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5755-DB
WP No. 201537 of 2024
HC-KAR
Annexure-A10 that Sindhanur Town Municipal Council
formed in the year 1954 does not have any relevancy
since the Municipalities Act has come into force in the year
1964. The Tribunal has misconstrued the provisions of the
Act of 2000 and the circular issued by the Government.
Respondent No.4 has not produced notification declaring
Sindhanur as 'Smaller Urban Area' under Section 3 of the
Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964. The issuance of
notification under Section 3 of the Act of 1964 is sine-quo-
non. In the absence of any notification declaring Sindhanur
as 'Smaller Urban Area', the finding of the Tribunal that
Sindhanur Town Municipal Council was formed in the year
1954 is without any basis and the very approach of the
Tribunal is erroneous. The fact that the petitioner has
studied 8th standard to 10th standard during the period
1988 to 1991 makes it very clear that the same comes
within the purview of the rural area. Therefore, the learned
counsel submits that the impugned order passed by the
Tribunal requires interference of this Court.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5755-DB
WP No. 201537 of 2024
HC-KAR
9. The learned counsel also relied upon the
judgment passed by the Tribunal in Application
Nos.20135-20142/2023 dated 03.05.2023 wherein it held
that the action of respondent No.2 is contrary to Rules
2021 and the method prescribed under that Rules and
quashed the notification dated 19.09.2022 issued by
respondent No.2 and held that the procedure followed is
contrary to the Rules, 2021 is illegal and the same is set
aside.
10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents vehemently contended that the Tribunal has
taken note of the material available on record while
considering the case of respondent No.4 and has taken
note that he has filed the objection immediately when the
provisional selection was modified and included the name
of the petitioner. He has also contended that on
07.08.2023 the Municipal Commissioner clarified to the
BEO vide Annexure-A10 stating that Sindhanur CMC was
upgraded as Town Municipality from 30.12.2006 and it
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5755-DB
WP No. 201537 of 2024
HC-KAR
does not come within the Rural area. However, respondent
No.3 issued appointment order to the petitioner in terms
of Annexure-A11 on 18.08.2023 without considering
Annexure-A10. The Tribunal rightly considered all these
materials while passing the impugned order allowing the
application. The fact that petitioner had studied from 1988
to 1991 at Sindhanur and during this period, population of
the Town was 9,445 according to the census of 1991. The
Tribunal has also taken note of the fact that those who
have studied from 1st standard to 10th standard in rural
area means a town or a small town or a place which is in
the phase of transition into a town defined in the
Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 and reference-6 is
extracted in paragraph-7 of the impugned order. The
Tribunal came to the conclusion that respondent No.4 has
studied in rural area and he is eligible for reservation
under the rural quota. However, respondent No.4 contends
that the report of Chief Officer of CMC, Sindhanur vide
Annexure-A10 has been ignored by the BEO and also
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5755-DB
WP No. 201537 of 2024
HC-KAR
respondent No.3. The Tribunal has also taken note of the
notification of 2000 which has been published in the
Karanataka Gazette on 22.01.2001 and the definition of
rural candidate in the said Act is given at Section 2 and
reproduced the same in the impugned order and came to
the conclusion that respondent No.4 has made out a case
and allowed the application and quashed the impugned
order dated 18.08.2023. The Tribunal also directed to
consider respondent No.4 under Rural quota after due
verification and directed respondent No.1 to take action
against the BEO, Sindhanur. Thus, the impugned order
passed by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not
require interference of this Court.
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents
and having considered the material available on record,
the points that would arise for our consideration are:
i. Whether the Tribunal has committed an
error in allowing the application filed by
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5755-DB
WP No. 201537 of 2024
HC-KAR
respondent No.4 holding that the petitioner
cannot avail the benefit of Rural quota in
view of upgrading of the said area as
Municipal area and whether it requires
interference of this Court?
ii. What order?
12. Having considered the material on record, it is
not in dispute that both the petitioner and respondent
No.4 had applied for the post of Panchayat Secretary
Grade-II in terms of the notification dated 19.09.2022. It
is also not in dispute that at the first instance, name of
respondent No.4 appeared in the provisional selection list
and it is also not in dispute that later on, name of the
petitioner was included in the list omitting the name of
respondent No.4. It is also not in dispute that respondent
No.4 filed objection to the same and the matter was
referred for verification of the genuinity of the certificate.
It is not in dispute that the Municipal Commissioner,
Sindhanur, had written letter to the BEO Sindhanur, vide
Annexure-A10 stating that CMC, Sindhanur was upgraded
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5755-DB
WP No. 201537 of 2024
HC-KAR
as town municipality from 30.12.2006 and it does not
come under the Rural area. The Tribunal having
considered Annexure-A10 came to the conclusion that the
BEO has committed an error in not considering the same.
It is important to note that it is not in dispute that the
petitioner herein has pursued his education i.e., High
School from 1988 to 1991 in a particular school at
Sindhanur. It is also important to note that, as per
Annexure-A10 issued by the Municipal Commissioner,
Sindhanur comes within CMC, in view of upgrading the
same as Town Municipality from 30.12.2006 and the same
is subsequent to pursuing of education by the petitioner. It
is also important to note that both the petitioner as well as
respondent No.4 has given representations to the BEO as
per Annexures-A8 and A9.
13. It is also important to note that the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner brought to the notice
of this Court the grounds urged in paragraph-13 of the
writ petition and contended that as per census of 1991,
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5755-DB
WP No. 201537 of 2024
HC-KAR
population of Sindhanur was 9,445. Learned counsel also
brought to the notice of this Court that according to
Sections 3 and 9 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964,
Sindhanur was not eligible for receiving notification for
upgrading as 'Larger Urban Area' or 'Smaller Urban Area'
or 'Transitional Area'. The respondent authorities have also
issued Form-II stating that rural category and Sindhanur
was not within the area of 'Larger Urban Area' or 'Smaller
Urban Area' or 'Transitional Area'. It is also his contention
that unless the validity of Form-II issued by the competent
authority is examined, setting side of Annexures-A11
would be unsustainable. It is also important to note that in
the absence of declaration of 'Rural Area' into 'Transitional
Area' under the municipal laws, the characteristic of rural
area would not change and there is no provision to treat
the area as deemed municipal area without there being
any change in ground reality or rural in nature. The
learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5755-DB
WP No. 201537 of 2024
HC-KAR
the Court Section 2 of the Act of 2000, which reads as
under:
"15. That, as per Sec 2 of the Karnataka
Reservation of appointment of posts (in the Civil
Services of posts) for Rural Candidates Act- 2000.
The "Rural Candidate" means a candidate, who has
studied,-
(i) from first standard to tenth standard where the
qualifying examination prescribed for a post is
S.S.L.C. or higher; or
(ii) from first standard to qualifying examination
where the qualifying examination prescribed for a
post is lower than S.S.L.C., -in a school situated in
any area other than a larger urban area, smaller
urban area or transitional area specified under the
Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 or the
Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964."
14. Having considered this, declaration of 'Larger
Urban Area' or 'Smaller Urban Area' or 'Transitional Area'
is specified under the Municipalities Act, 1964 and the
same is sine-quo-non. But the Tribunal has committed an
error in relying upon Annexure-A10 which says that
Sindhanur Town Municipal Council was formed in the year
1954 and mere formation of municipal council in the year
1954, does not have relevancy since the Municipalities Act
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5755-DB
WP No. 201537 of 2024
HC-KAR
came into force in the year 1964. Hence, there is force in
the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
15. The Tribunal has failed to take note of Section 2
of the Act of 2000. The second provision clearly states that
if a school is situated in any area other than a 'Larger
Urban Area', 'Smaller Urban Area' or 'Transitional Area',
specified under the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act,
1976 or the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, unless
such area is declared as 'Larger Urban Area' or 'Smaller
Urban Area' or 'Transitional Area', reliance on Annexure-
A10 by the Tribunal is erroneous. The very approach of the
Tribunal is unsustainable. The finding recorded by the
Tribunal that the definition of a rural candidate does not
depend on the population is misconceived. It is not only
the population which has to be taken note, but also, there
must be a declaration that the area is other than a "Larger
Urban Area" or "Smaller Urban Area" or "Transitional
Area", as per Section 2 of the Act, of 2000 and the same
has not been properly construed. The issuance of the
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5755-DB
WP No. 201537 of 2024
HC-KAR
notification under Section 3 of the Municipalities Act, 1964
is sine-quo-non in the absence of any notification declaring
Sindhanur as smaller urban area. The finding of the
Tribunal that Sindhanur Town Municipal Council was
formed in the year 1954 is without any basis as contended
by the learned counsel for the petitioner to consider the
area is not rural.
16. The Tribunal failed to take note of the fact that
Act of 2000 came into force on 30.01.2001 and the
petitioner has studied 8th standard to 10th standard during
the period 1988 to 1991 and therefore, there cannot be
any retrospective application. The Tribunal also failed to
take note of the fact that the issuance of certificate for
claiming rural quota was in terms of the notification dated
19.10.1995 and Circular dated 30.05.1996. In terms of the
said notification, which was prevailing in respect of the
petitioner, the certificate was valid. It is also brought to
the notice of this Court that though the learned counsel for
respondent No.4 would contend that the said certificate
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5755-DB
WP No. 201537 of 2024
HC-KAR
was not filed along with the application, learned counsel
for the petitioner produced the additional documents
before this Court to show that immediately after the
subsequent notification dated 10.07.2023 which was
issued as against the earlier notification dated 19.09.2022,
the petitioner produced the certificates in compliance with
Anubandha-1 to 3 on 13.07.2023 prior to 14.07.2023
which was the last date fixed for filing the application.
Thus, the very contention of the learned counsel for
respondent No.4 that no such certificate was enclosed
along with the application cannot be accepted. When the
petitioner pursued his education in the year 1988-1991
and at that time, Sindhanur was not declared as CMC, the
Tribunal committed an error in relying upon Annexure-
A10. Hence, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal
requires interference of this Court. Hence, we answer the
point for consideration in affirmative.
17. In view of the discussions made above, we
proceed to pass the following:
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5755-DB
WP No. 201537 of 2024
HC-KAR
ORDER
i. The Writ Petition is allowed.
ii. The impugned order dated 29.05.2024
passed by the Tribunal in Application
No.20743/2023 as per Annexure-C is set
aside and the application is dismissed as
sans merits.
iii. Consequently, the order dated
18.08.2023 passed by respondent No.3
at Annexure-A11 in favour of the
petitioner is hereby confirmed.
iv. In view of setting aside the order of the
Tribunal and dismissing the application,
initiating action against the BEO,
Sindhanur, does not arise.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(T.M.NADAF)
JUDGE
NB
CT:NI
