NAZIR HUSSAIN M P vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
WP No. 8544 of 2022


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 15 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

AND


THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

WRIT PETITION NO. 8544 OF 2022 (S-KSAT)

BETWEEN:

NAZIR HUSSAIN M P
S/O LATE MOHAMMED P
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT NO.13, GROUND
NEAR MASJID E SULTAN
KANAKA NAGAR,
R T NAGAR POST
BENGALURU-560032.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M.B. NARAGUND, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI SUBRAMANYA BHAT M., ADV.)


AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS
VIHDNA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560001.

2. THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSIONS
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
UDYOG SODUHA PARK HOUSE
BENGALURU -560 001.

3. SRI IMMASAB MYAGERI
AGED MAJOR
RAJUR POST, RON TALUK
GADAG DISTRICT-582230












Digitally signed by
NANJUNDACHARI
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka

- 2 -
WP No. 8544 of 2022


ALSO EMPLOYED AT:
CENTRAL JAIL, DARGA JAIL ROAD
SANKH -BIJAPUR ROAD
AJAME DARGA, VIJAYAPUR
KARNATAKA -586103.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S C DESHMUKH, AGA FOR R1
SRI K.M. PRAKASH, ADV. FOR R2)

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) ISSUE WRIT IN A NATURE
OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT QUASHING THE
DISMISSAL ORDER PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION NO.6881/2019 DATED
28/02/2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-E; B) ISSUE WRIT IN A NATURE OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT QUASHING THE
SELECTION LIST BEARING NOTIFICATION NO.E(1)41/2005-06/PSC,
BANGALORE DATED 04/05/2006 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2,
VIDE ANNEXURE-A3, IN SO FAR AS APPLICANT IS CONCERNED AND
ETC.

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDER ON 21.09.2026 COMING ON THIS DAY , S.G.PANDIT J.,
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

Petitioner, unsuccessful applicant before the
Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for
short, ‘the Tribunal’) is before this Court under Article 226
of the Constitution of India questioning correctness and
legality of order dated 28.02.2022 in Application
No.6881/2019, whereunder, the prayer of the petitioner to

- 3 -
WP No. 8544 of 2022


include his name in selection list dated 04.05.2006
(Annexure-A3) and thereafter to appoint as Gazetted
Probationary Officer, etc., is rejected mainly on the ground
of delay and laches.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner
who was the applicant before the Tribunal, applied for the
post of Gazetted Probationers Group-A and B post in
pursuance to notification dated 04.11.2004 claiming 2B
(Rural) reservation. The selection was by preliminary and
main examination along with interview. The petitioner
failed to qualify in the preliminary examination.
Questioning the key answers provided to several
questions, contending that the answer given by the
petitioner is correct, approached the Tribunal along with
others in Application No.2678/2005. In the said
Application, the Tribunal by interim order dated
20.07.2005 directed the KPSC to permit the petitioner to
write the main examination, however, directed the KPSC
not to declare the result of the applicant and similarly
situated candidates who had approached the Tribunal. The

- 4 -
WP No. 8544 of 2022


petitioner on the strength of the interim order wrote main
examination for the Gazetted Probationers Group-A and B,
2004. The Tribunal by order dated 15.09.2005 disposed of
the main Application and directed the Government to
constitute a body of three experts in each of the subjects
to be drawn from three different organizations preferably
the head of the departments in the Universities in
Karnataka and refer the matter for their specific opinion
with regard to right key answers for various questions.
Further, it directed that the recommendations of the
committee shall be final and based on the report of the
expert body, the respondents shall re-determine the
marks in respect of the applicants and notify the same.

3. Consequent on the above exercise, it directed
the KPSC to declare the results of the main examination of
the petitioner and similarly situated other applicants.
Questioning the said order, the respondent – KPSC
approached this Court in W.P.No.24253/2005 and
Connected Writ Petitions. It is stated that by interim order
passed in the said writ petition, the order of the Tribunal

- 5 -
WP No. 8544 of 2022


dated 15.09.2005 in Application No.2678/2005 was
stayed. Thereafter, the respondent – KPSC published final
select list on 04.05.2006. Taking note of the fact that the
respondents in the writ petition such as petitioner herein
and others have not been selected, this Court dismissed
the writ petitions as having become infructuous.

4. Thereafter, it is stated that some of the
unsuccessful candidates who participated in the selection
process for the Gazetted Probationers Group-A and B,
2004 filed Public Interest Litigation (for short, ‘PIL’) in
W.P.No.27674/2012. The said PIL was disposed of by
order dated 21.06.2016 holding that the procedure
followed by the KPSC in preparing the list of candidates
who are admitted to the written examination and the list
of candidates who are called for the personality test in
1998, 1999 and 2004 for the post of gazetted probationers
(Group A and B posts) is unconstitutional, contrary to the
Rules and Government Orders. It is stated that against
the said order passed by the High Court, the respondent –
KPSC approached the Hon'ble Apex Court in

- 6 -
WP No. 8544 of 2022


SLP(C).No.29245/2016 which came to be dismissed on
11.04.2018. Thereafter, Review Petition No.606/2019 is
said to have been filed by the State which was also
dismissed on 27.02.2019. Thereafter, revised select list
was published on 22.08.2019. It is stated that the
petitioner had scored 713 marks and without considering
his marks, the candidates who had scored lesser marks
under 2B category have been selected. As the order in PIL
granted liberty to individual candidates to approach the
Tribunal to redress their grievance, the petitioner
approached the Tribunal once again in Application
No.6881/2019 with a prayer to include his name in the
select list dated 04.05.2006. The Tribunal on hearing the
parties, by impugned order dated 28.02.2022 dismissed
the Application mainly on the ground of delay and laches.
Questioning the said order, the petitioner is before this
Court in this writ petition.

5. Heard learned senior counsel Sri.M.B.Naragund
for Sri.Subramanya Bhat.M., learned counsel for
petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate

- 7 -
WP No. 8544 of 2022


Sri.S.C.Deshmukh for respondent No.1 and learned
counsel Sri.K.M.Prakash for respondent No.2 – KPSC.
Perused the entire writ petition papers.

6. Learned senior counsel Sri.M.B.Naragund
vehemently contends that the Tribunal committed a grave
error in dismissing the petitioner’s Application to include
his name in the selection list dated 04.05.2006 of the
Gazetted Probationers Group-A and B, 2004, solely on the
ground of delay and laches, without going into the merits.
Learned senior counsel would submit that the first
respondent – State failed to act upon the direction issued
by the Tribunal dated 15.09.2005 in Application
No.2678/2005 to constitute a body of three experts in
each subjects and based on their recommendation to
revise the cutoff marks to qualify for main examination.

7. Further, learned senior counsel would submit
that the petitioner was vigilant and has approached the
Court immediately and was pursuing his remedies. On
dismissal of the writ petition filed by KPSC against the

- 8 -
WP No. 8544 of 2022


order of the Tribunal, PIL was filed with regard to selection
of candidates for the Gazetted Probationers Group-A and
B, 1998, 1999, which was disposed of in the year 2016
and attained finality in the year 2018. Thereafter, the
petitioner approached the Tribunal in the year 2019 to
include his name in the select list of Gazetted Probationers
Group-A and B, 2004 published on 04.05.2006. It is
submitted that cause of action arose only on order in PIL
attained finality.

8. Learned senior counsel would submit that the
Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the sequence of
events which had taken place from the date of preliminary
examination till the disposal of PIL and wrongly dismissed
the petitioner’s Application. It is submitted that when the
petitioner has shown bonafide reasons in pursuing his
remedy, the Tribunal ought to have entertained the
Application and decided the claim of the petitioner on
merit. Thus, he would pray for allowing the writ petition.

- 9 -
WP No. 8544 of 2022


9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing
for KPSC as well as learned Additional Government
Advocate would support the order passed by the Tribunal
and would further submit that a person who sleeps over
his right and awakes belatedly, that too in the matter of
selection and appointment, would not be entitled for any
relief. Learned counsels would point out that the petitioner
has failed to take any action on dismissal of writ petition of
the KPSC by this Court dated 05.08.2011 in
W.P.No.24263/2005. Further, it is submitted that the
petitioner was not a party to PIL and he could not have
waited for disposal of PIL to redress his individual
grievance. Thus, learned counsels would pray for dismissal
of the writ petition.

10. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition
papers, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned
order passed by the Tribunal dismissing the petitioner’s
Application to include his name in the select list published
on 04.05.2006 on the ground of delay and laches.

- 10 -
WP No. 8544 of 2022



11. Section 21 of the The Administrative Tribunals
Act, 1985 (for short, ‘the Act’) prescribes limitation of one
year from the date of order or cause of action to approach
the Tribunal. Section 21(3) of the Act also empowers the
Tribunal to condone the delay on providing sufficient
cause. Be that as it may.

12. The Hon'ble Apex Court as early as in (1975) 1
SCC 152 (P.S.SADASIVASWAMY VS. STATE OF TAMIL
NADU) , while considering a case of delay in challenging
the promotion has held as follows:
“……… It is not that there is any period of
limitation for the Courts to exercise their powers
under Article 226 nor is it that there can never be a
case where the Courts cannot interfere in a matter
after the passage of a certain length of time. But it
would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for
the Courts to refuse to exercise their extraordinary
powers under Article 226 in the case of persons
who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and
who stand by and allow things to happen and then
approach the Court to put forward stale claims and
try to unsettle settled matters. The petitioner's
petition should, therefore, have been dismissed in

- 11 -
WP No. 8544 of 2022


limine. Entertaining such petitions is a waste of
time of the Court. It clogs the work of the Court
and impedes the work of the Court in considering
legitimate grievances as also its normal work.”

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the above decision has made it
clear that though there is no limitation for the Courts to
exercise their power under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, it would be a sound and wise exercise of
discretion to refuse to exercise their extraordinary powers
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the case of
persons who do not approach the Court expeditiously for
relief. Further, it is observed that entertaining stale claim
would be waste of time of the Court and it would not be
appropriate to unsettle, settled matters.

13. The present Application relates to selection and
appointment relating to Gazetted Probationers Group-A
and B, 2004. Admittedly, initially final select list was
published on 04.05.2006, which was not challenged by the
petitioner. The petitioner has also not taken any steps to
implement the direction issued by the Tribunal dated
15.09.2005 in Application No.2678/2005, even after

- 12 -
WP No. 8544 of 2022


dismissal of writ petition filed by the KPSC in
W.P.No.24263/2005 dated 05.08.2011. Having kept quiet
for years together on disposal of the PIL, taking advantage
of the observation made therein, the petitioner
approached the Tribunal. In the matter of selection and
appointment, aggrieved person shall approach the Court
or Tribunal forthwith without any delay. Even shortest
delay of a month or two could create right in favour of
selected candidates.

14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in CIVIL APPEAL
No.1924/2010 (SANKAR MONDAL VS. THE STATE OF
WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS) dated 15.02.2022
while
considering a case of selection and appointment to the
post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) who had waited for about
seven years for getting the appointment letter, has held as
follows:
“The fact that the advertisement was of the
year 1999 and we are in 2022, i.e. 24 years hence
itself is an impediment in any relief to the
appellant. However, that itself would not non-suit
the appellant as learned counsel for the appellant
contends that the appellant is now about 45 years

- 13 -
WP No. 8544 of 2022


plus hence it is submitted that he still has time to
serve out. The fact however, remains that the
impediment in the way of the appellant was the
lack of police verification report which subsequently
went against the appellant.

In our view, in a recruitment process, a
candidate cannot be permitted to approach for
redressal, howsoever may be the genuineness of
the grievance, at any stage of time as there has to
be a closure to the process of recruitment. In case
of an advertisement dated 1999, the appellant
cannot be permitted to plead that he was waiting
for seven long years for getting an appointment
letter and then woke up to file the O.A. before the
State Administrative Tribunal. This itself is a ground
to non-suit the appellant.”

In the above decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court has
specifically observed that in a recruitment process, a
candidate cannot be permitted to approach for redressal,
howsoever may be the genuineness of the
grievance, at any stage of time as there has to be a
closure to the process of recruitment.

15. In the instant case, the petitioner has not taken
any steps between August-2011, the date on which writ

- 14 -
WP No. 8544 of 2022


petition filed by KPSC was dismissed till filing of the
Application in the year 2019. The petitioner has failed to
explain the delay of nearly eight years as to why he could
not take any action to implement the order of the Tribunal
which had directed to constitute expert body to examine
the key answers. The case of the petitioner that since PIL
was pending, he had not taken any steps, cannot be
accepted in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Looking to the dates and events, it could be said that the
petitioner is a fence sitter and was watching the
proceedings in PIL instead of taking or agitating his own
grievance.

16. The Tribunal placing on the decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court has rightly come to the conclusion that
the Application is hit by delay and laches, which cannot be
condoned since third party right has been created in
pursuance to the select list dated 04.05.2006.

17. Furthermore, admittedly the petitioner has not
challenged the select list of Gazetted Probationers Group-A

- 15 -
WP No. 8544 of 2022


and B, 2004 published on 04.05.2006. Further, admittedly
the petitioner is not qualified in preliminary examination
for Gazetted Probationers Group-A and B, 2004 and a
person who has not qualified in preliminary examination
has no right to write main examination. The petitioner
wrote main examination in pursuance to the interim order
wherein, it was directed not to announce the results.

18. For the reasons recorded above, we do not find
any cause or cogent reason to interfere with the order
passed by the Tribunal in dismissing the Application for
inordinate delay in approaching the Tribunal.

19. Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed .


Sd/-
(S.G.PANDIT)
JUDGE


Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE


NC
CT:bms