[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Shilpa A R vs The Chief Executive Officer on 5 February, 2026
Author: H.T. Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T. Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:6794
WP No. 6434 of 2020
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 6434 OF 2020 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SHILPA A R
D/O RAMESH
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
R/AT AGRAHARA VILLAGE AND POST
ARAKALAGUDU TALUK
DODDAMAGGE HOBLI
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 116.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. KESHAVA BHAT A., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by 1. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
MALATHI CHALUVA ZILLA PANCHAYAT
IYENGAR
B M ROAD
Location: HIGH
COURTOF HASSAN-573 201.
KARNATAKA
2. THE PRESIDENT
AGRAHARA GRAMAPANCHAYAT
AGRAHARA
ARAKALAGUDU TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 116.
3. MR. MADHU M R
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
S/O RAMESHA M S
R/A NO.56-1, 2ND MAIN CROSS
MUGALUR VILLAGE
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:6794
WP No. 6434 of 2020
HC-KAR
DODDAMAGGE HOBLI
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 133.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NAGARAJAPPA A., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. SOMASHEKARA K. M., ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
ENTIRE RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE IMPUGNED
RESOLUTION OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT GRAMA
PANCHAYATH DATED 27.11.2019 FROM THE FILE OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT AND ON PERUSAL OF THE SAME SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED RESOLUTION DATED 27.11.2019 MADE THEREIN IN
RESPECT OF APPOINTMENT 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE POST
OF CLERK CUM DATA ENTRY OPERATOR PRODUCED HEREWITH
AS ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
ORAL ORDER
1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has called in
question the impugned resolution dated 27.11.2019
passed by respondent No.2-Agrahara Grama Panchayath,
Arakalagudu Taluk, Hassan vide Annexure-C, whereby
respondent No.3 has been appointed as Clerk-cum-Data
Entry Operator.
NC: 2026:KHC:6794
HC-KAR
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2-
Agrahara Grama Panchayat called for an application on
11.10.2019 to fill up vacant post in respondent No.2-
Grama Panchayat for the post of Clerk-cum-Data Entry
Operator. The petitioner as well as respondent No.3
applied for the said post. By the impugned resolution
dated 27.11.2019, vide Annexure-C, respondent No.2
appointed respondent No.3 as Clerk-cum-Data Entry
Operator, even though the petitioner had secured higher
marks than respondent No.3 in Pre-University College
(PUC). As per the Government Circular produced as
Annexure-R3 dated 10.09.2014, the qualification
prescribed for appointment to the post of Clerk-cum-Data
Entry Operator is that the candidate must have passed
PUC and must have undergone six months' training in a
Computer Application course from a Training Institute
recognized by the Central or State Government and
possess a certificate. The relevant portion of the
Government Circular vide Annexure-R3, is as follows:
NC: 2026:KHC:6794
HC-KAR
PÀæ ¹§âA¢ ªÀUÀð ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼À «zÁåºÀðvÉ £ÉêÀÄPÁw
¸ÀA ¸ÀASÉå «zsÁ£À
¦.AiÀÄÄ.¹. AiÀÄ°è vÉÃUÀðqÉ £ÉÃgÀ £ÉêÀÄPÁw
UÀĪÀiÁ¸ÁÛ/¨ÉgÀ¼ÀZÀÄÑUÁgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀA¥ÀÆålgï ªÀÄÆ®PÀ
2 (PÀèPïð PÀA qÁmÁ 1 C¦èÃPÉõÀ£ï £À°è ¥ÀjtÂw
JAnæ C¥ÀgÉÃlgï ºÉÆA¢zÀÄÝ PÀA¥ÀÆålgï
ªÀÄgÀÄ £ÁªÀÄPÀgÀt C¦èÃPÉõÀ£ï PÉÆøïð£À°è
ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVzÉ) PÉÃAzÀæ CxÀªÁ gÁdå
¸ÀPÁðgÀ¢AzÀ ªÀiÁ£ÀåvÉ ¥ÀqÉzÀ
vÀgÀ¨ÉÃw ¸ÀA¸ÉܬÄAzÀ 6
wAUÀ¼À vÀgÀ¨ÉÃw ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ
ºÁUÀÆ ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæ
ºÉÆA¢gÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ.
3. The Certificate produced by the petitioner shows that
the petitioner has completed her Computer Course in
Malnad Computer Education Center, Ramanathapura,
which is not a center recognized by the State Government
or the Central Government and it is also not a franchisee
of KEONICS. In fact, the very branch has sent a
communication dated 22.11.2019 vide Annexure-R8 to the
PDO/President, Grama Panchayat, Agrahara, stating that
Malnad Computer Education Center, Ramanathapura has
not received any recognition from the Government and
NC: 2026:KHC:6794
HC-KAR
has also mentioned that the certificate issued to the
petitioner is a private certificate.
4. Even though respondent No.3 has secured lesser
marks than the petitioner in PUC, as per the Government
Circular dated 10.09.2014, he is fully qualified and has
produced the experience certificate and training certificate
issued by a recognized institution. Therefore, respondent
No.2-Panchayat has rightly appointed respondent No.3
and rejected the claim of the petitioner. Therefore, there is
no error or illegality in the impugned resolution dated
27.11.2019 passed by respondent No.2-Agrahara Grama
Panchayath, Arakalagudu Taluk, Hassan vide Annexure-C.
5. Hence, the writ petition is devoid of merit and
accordingly, it is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD)
JUDGE
