SHRI BASEER S/O MAKABULSAB SANDI vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17250
WP No. 105150 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020143092024



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD


TH
DATED THIS THE 15 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

WRIT PETITION NO.105150 OF 2024 (S-RES)

BETWEEN:

SHRI. BASEER S/O. MAKABULSAB SANDI,
AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. RAMATIRTH VILLAGE, TQ. ATHANI,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591265




…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SANTOSH B.RAWOOT, ADVOCATE AND
SRI. PRADEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATH
RAJ BENGALURU-01.

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI
TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI-590001.

3. THE TASHILDAR AND TALUKA MAGISTRATE, ATHANI,
TQ. ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591304.

4. THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
KAKAMARI GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ. ATHANI,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591248.

5. SHRI MUTTANNA S/O. IRAGONDA HALAGUNAKI,
AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KAKAMARI VILLAGE, TQ. ATHANI,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591248.
…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SHARAD V.MAGADUM, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. V. SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
NOTICE TO R5 IS SERVED)








Digitally signed by
THEJAS KUMAR N
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17250
WP No. 105150 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020143092024



THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT IN
THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION,
SETTING ASIDE APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT
NO.3 TO THE RESPONDENT NO.5 DATED 15/07/2024 VIDE
ANNEXURE-C, INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. B) THE
RESPONDENT NO.3 MAY KINDLY BE DIRECTED TO CONSIDER THE
RECOMMENDATION OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BELAGAVI
DATED 12/07/2017 TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. C)
PASS ANY SUCH APPROPRIATE ORDERS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT
DEEMS FIT, JUST AND PROPER IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS
CASE, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FRESH MATTERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

ORAL ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed seeking following reliefs:

a) Issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any
other writ or direction, setting aside appointment
order issued by the respondent No.3 to the
respondent No.5 dated 15/07/2024 vide
Annexure-C, interest of justice and equity.

b) The respondent No.3 may kindly be directed to
consider the recommendation of the Deputy
Commissioner Belagavi dated 12/07/2017 to
meet the ends of justice and equity.

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17250
WP No. 105150 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020143092024



c) Pass any such appropriate orders as this Hon’ble
Court deems fit, just and proper in the
circumstances of this case, in the ends of justice
and equity.

2. Facts germane to file the present Writ Petition
are as under:

2.1 In response to the Notification dated 06.11.2023
calling for appointment to the post of Gram Sahayak
in the Kakameri Grama Panchayat, Athani Taluk, the
petitioner submitted an application.

2.2 Along with the petitioner, there were 24 other
applications. In all there were 25 applications to the
said post.

2.3 On the active participation of respondent No.3, after
the scrutiny of the applications, 10 applications came
to be rejected, as they were falling short in terms of
the details required as per the Notification. One such
application rejected pertains to respondent No.5.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17250
WP No. 105150 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020143092024



2.4 After scrutiny, 15 applications which were said to be
in order, the applicants in those applications were
notified to appear for interview on 16.12.2023.
However, on the said date, as per the office note in
respect of the proceedings, 03 applications which
were earlier rejected, were also considered. In all 18
persons were interviewed.

2.5 Thereafter, by means of order dated 15.07.2024,
respondent No.3 issued appointment order in favor of
respondent No.5 appointing him as Grama Sahayak
in respect of Kakameri Grama Panchayat, Athani
Taluk.

2.6 Aggrieved by the order of appointment issued in
favor of a person whose application at the first
instance was rejected, the petitioner who is also one
of the aspirants to the said post, is before this Court.

3. Heard, Sri.Santosh B.Rawoot, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Sharad V.Magadum,

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17250
WP No. 105150 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020143092024


learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for
respondents 1 to 3 and Sri.V.Shivaraj Hiremath, learned
counsel appearing for respondent No.4. Respondent No.5
though served, remained unrepresented.

4. Sri.Santosh Rawoot, inviting the attention of
this Court to the application submitted by respondent No.5
Muttanna, submits that as per the remarks dated
28.11.2023, in view of the direction by respondent No.3-
Tahsildar, the application was rejected for falling short of
producing documents prescribed at Sl.Nos.2, 5, 6 and 7 of
the application. However, without disclosing anything in
the proceedings, the rejected application of the respondent
No.5 was considered for interview and surprisingly, an
order of appointment came to be issued in his favor. The
same clearly shows that entire action which has been
contemplated is not in accordance with law, but for some
other considerations.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17250
WP No. 105150 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020143092024



5. In contrast, Sri.V.Shivaraj Hiremath, submits
that the PDO of concerned Panchayat has no role to play in
the appointment of respondent No.5, as it is the entire
action of the Revenue Department. As such, nothing can
be taken against the PDO in respect of the appointment of
respondent No.5.

6. Sri Sharad V.Magadum, with all vehemence
submits that though the application at the earlier point of
time was rejected, but on the request of the persons
whose applications were rejected, in order to avoid any
further complicity, respondent No.3 Tahsildar - the
authority, enjoined with the power to appoint, considered
the application again and on re-scrutiny, permitted
respondent No.5 and other two persons to participate in
the interview. He further submits that, respondent No.5
was selected to the said post on the basis of merits. In
that view of the matter, no exception may be taken by this
Court against the order of appointment and sought to
dismiss the Writ Petition.

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17250
WP No. 105150 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020143092024



7. Though learned AGA submits that respondent
No.5 has been selected on the basis of merits in respect of
computer knowledge (based on the test conducted at the
time of interview), but the fact remains that his application
was rejected. No records have been produced to show that
there was a request made by respondent No.5 and two
other persons, whose applications were again reconsidered
and re-scrutinized.

8. Learned AGA in a feeble voice tries to support
his contention that, on the oral request of those persons,
respondent No.3 Tahsildar has taken action.

9. The submission of learned AGA cannot be
countenanced, the reason being, the application is for a
call for a public appointment. Though there is a request,
which as per the learned AGA is oral one, the same cannot
be a circumstance or basis for reconsidering the rejected
application.

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17250
WP No. 105150 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020143092024



10. As rightly pointed out by Mr.Rawoot, the
application came to be rejected on 28.11.2023 as per the
direction of the very same respondent No.3 – Tahsildar,
falling short of production of documents sought in the
application. Nothing is forthcoming in the notes of the
proceedings, as to the reasons for reconsidering the
application and even in the notes, it has not specifically
stated the name of the persons whose applications were
considered for re-scrutiny. In the absence of any
document seeking to re-scrutiny, this Court finds it hard to
accept the contentions of learned AGA made on behalf of
respondent No.3 - Tahsildar.

11. This Court, having found that the appointment
made is not in accordance with law, directed the
concerned Tahsildar, who has issued the said appointment
order, to be present before this Court. In compliance of
the said order, the Tahsildar who has conducted the
interview and issued the appointment order, is present
before this Court along with the records.

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17250
WP No. 105150 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020143092024



12. Though an attempt is made through learned
AGA that, the applications were reconsidered on oral
request, but the concerned Tahsildar has failed to state
the same as to whether the said fact has been reflected in
the note sheets of the proceedings. Nothing is forthcoming
in the note sheets regarding the reason for re-scrutiny. In
the absence of any document seeking re-scrutiny, the
action contemplated by respondent No.3 once having
rejected the application to consider the same again is
unsustainable and against law.

13. Respondent No.5 who has been served,
remained unrepresented. This Court after issuing notice,
on 03.12.2025, passed an interim order that the
appointment of the selected candidate i.e. fifth respondent
shall remain, subject to the result of the petition. Nothing
is forthcoming in respect of the earlier directions issued by
this Court on 17.11.2025 as to whether respondent No.5
has attended the interview and the appointment is
pursuant to an interview.

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17250
WP No. 105150 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020143092024



14. Today learned AGA produced certain documents
stating to be the note sheets of appointment proceedings,
wherein respondent No.5 attended the interview.
However, it is not understandable that the person whose
application which was rejected at the earlier point of time
i.e. way back on 28.11.2023, again permitted to attend
the interview scheduled on 16.12.2023. The note sheet
clearly shows that, respondent No.5 was permitted to
attend computer test, on the very same day the
applications were re-scrutinized. This action on the part of
respondent No.3 Tahsildar is highly arbitrary and
unsustainable in law.

15. In the absence of proper explanation and the
documents seeking re-scrutiny, the entire action
contemplated by respondent No.3 Tahsildar cannot be
sustained in law. In that view of the matter, the entire
action contemplated in appointing respondent No.5 is
against the principles of law and amounts to arbitrary
action and colourable exercise of power by respondent

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17250
WP No. 105150 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020143092024


No.3 Tahsildar. In view thereof, the Writ Petition is
allowed
. The impugned order dated 15.07.2024 at
Annexure-C is set-aside. Respondent No.3 Tahsildar is
directed to re-do the entire exercise of appointment from
the stage of interview, in respect of 15 applications, which
were in order, after issuing proper intimation to all the 15
aspirants/ candidates, including the petitioner and pass
appropriate orders and issue appointment on the basis of
merits, in accordance with law.

16. The entire exercise shall be concluded within a
period of four weeks from today.
23.11.2026
17. List this matter on , for reporting
compliance.

Sd/-
(T.M.NADAF)
JUDGE



TKN
CT: UMD
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36