THE STATE OF KARNATAKA vs RANI S
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:36309-DB
CCC No. 732 of 2025
C/W WA No. 1603 of 2025
R
CNR: KAHC010396152025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 15 DAY OF JULY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 732 OF 2025
C/W
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1603 OF 2025 (S-DIS)
IN CCC No. 732/2025
BETWEEN:
RANI S.,
D/O SHIVARAJU C.,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
RURAL MULTI-PURPOSE HIGH SCHOOL,
RURAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,
KANAKAPURA.
R/AT KALLUKERE DODDI VILLAGE,
T. BEKUPPE POST,
KASABA HOBLI,
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 117.
…COMPLAINANT
(BY SRI. SATHEESH N KOTTALAGI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SRIKANTH M P., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
TRILOKACHANDRA K.V,
IAS, COMMISSIONER,
PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
Digitally
signed by
REKHA R
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:36309-DB
CCC No. 732 of 2025
C/W WA No. 1603 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010396152025
NEW PUBLIC OFFICES,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
K.R. CIRCLE,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. KRISHNJI S KARICHANNAVAR,
DIRECTOR,
PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
SECONDARY EDUCATION,
NEW PUBLIC OFFICES,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
K.R.CIRCLE,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
3. BASAVARAJEGOWDA,
DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
RAMANGARA DISTRICT,
RAMANAGARA - 562 159.
4.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION,
M.S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001,
REP BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
…ACCUSED
(BY SRI.M.N. SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1 TO R3,
AND PRO FORMA R4)
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF
THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, BY THE COMPLAINANT,
WHEREIN PRAYS THAT THE HON'BLE COURT BE PLEASED TO
INITIATE APPROPRIATE ACTION AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR
WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER DATED:25.09.2024
PASSED ON W.P.NO.12974/2023 (S-RES) BY THIS HON'BLE
COURT VIDE ANNEXURE - G AND ETC.,
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:36309-DB
CCC No. 732 of 2025
C/W WA No. 1603 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010396152025
IN WA NO. 1603/2025
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL
EDUCATION AND LITERACY,
M.S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR
PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
NEW PUBLIC OFFICES,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
K.R. CIRCLE,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
3. THE DIRECTOR OF
PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
SECONDARY EDUCATION,
NEW PUBLIC OFFICES,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
K.R. CIRCLE,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT,
RAMANGARA - 562 159.
5. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER,
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
KANAKAPURA - 562 159.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. M.N. SUDEV HEGDE, AGA)
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:36309-DB
CCC No. 732 of 2025
C/W WA No. 1603 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010396152025
AND:
1.
RANI S.,
D/O. SHIVARAJU. C,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
RURAL MILTI-PURPOSE HIGH SCHOOL,
RURAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,
KANAKAPURA,
R/AT KALLUKERE DODDI VILLAGE,
T. BEKUPPE POST,
KASABA HOBLI,
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT,
RAMANAGARA - 562 159.
2. GRAMA VIDYA PRACHARAKA SANGHA,
M.G. ROAD,
KANAKAPURA - 562 117,
BENGALURU SOUTH DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SATESH N KOTTALAGI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SRIKANTH M.P., ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO
ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED:25.09.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE OF THIS HONBLE COURT IN WP NO.12974/2023
AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION AND APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:36309-DB
CCC No. 732 of 2025
C/W WA No. 1603 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010396152025
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF)
The respondent-State and its instrumentalities in
W.P.No.12975/2023 are in this appeal, assailing the order
dated 25.09.2024 passed by the Writ Court.
2. The Writ Court under the order impugned
allowed the writ petition, quashed the endorsement dated
15.06.2023, issued by the Deputy Director of Public
Instructions, Ramanagara District, Ramanagara-
respondent No.4 and directed the Commissioner/Director/
Deputy Director of Public Instructions - respondent Nos.2
to 4 respectively, to take proper and effective steps to
approve the appointment of the petitioner so also to admit
her appointment to salary grant, in accordance with law
within the time bound manner.
3. The parties are referred to as per their ranking
before the Writ Court.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:36309-DB
CCC No. 732 of 2025
C/W WA No. 1603 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010396152025
4. Facts in brief to file the present petition are as
under:
4.1 The petitioner was before the Writ Court seeking the
following reliefs:
"a) Direct the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 to consider the
th
proposal submitted by the 6 respondent
management for approval of the appointment of the
petitioner with grant in aid in the institution run by
th
the 6 respondent and admit the petitioner to grant
in aid Annexure-R.
ia) Quash the Endorsement bearing No.ANUZ KA AA
PROU SHA HUDDE ANUMODANE 131/2022-23
th
751/23/24 dated 15.06.2023 passed by the 4
Respondent-Annexure-S"
4.2 The petitioner claims that she was appointed in the
Institution run by Grama Vidya Pracharaka Sangha-
respondent No.6. A Notification was published by the
respondent No.6-Sangha on 12.10.2022, calling upon
applications to fill up various posts wherein a post in
respect of Science Teacher (CBZ) was also included.
The petitioner submitted an application and was
selected and appointed as Assistant Teacher Science-
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:36309-DB
CCC No. 732 of 2025
C/W WA No. 1603 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010396152025
CBZ by respondent No.6 on 24.12.2022. Subsequent
to her appointment, a proposal was sent for approval
with the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4. When the
proposal was underway, the objection came to be
filed by some family member having family feud with
the petitioner's family, wherein it was contented that
a criminal case was filed against the petitioner and
the police after investigation filed charge sheet being
C.C.No.1895/2021 on the file of the JMFC,
Kanakapura for the offences punishable under
Sections 323, 324, 504, 506, 114 read with Section
34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. This was the reason
for the official respondents who placed the proposal
to admit her appointment to grant on the
backburner.
4.3 The petitioner filed an affidavit with the official
respondents stating that, if she is convicted she
would pay back the salary received and also resign
from the job. When this did not work, the petitioner
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:36309-DB
CCC No. 732 of 2025
C/W WA No. 1603 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010396152025
submitted a representation dated 06.06.2023 to
respondent No.6 and requested to pursue the official
respondents regarding granting approval of her
appointment and grant her appointment to salary
grant.
4.4 Respondent No.4 issued an endorsement dated
05.06.2023, informing that the District Verification
Committee under a Resolution dated 03.06.2023,
resolved to drop the case of the petitioner for
approval of appointment, in view of pendency of the
criminal case against her. Aggrieved by the
endorsement, the petitioner was before the Writ
Court.
4.5 Before the Writ Court, it was contented by the
petitioner that the case registered by the police and
charge sheet filed thereon has nothing to do with her
service and therefore the respondent No.4 could not
have refused to grant approval for appointment to
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:36309-DB
CCC No. 732 of 2025
C/W WA No. 1603 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010396152025
salary grant. Further, it was contented that in view of
the affidavit submitted by her, the respondents could
not have rejected the request for approval of her
appointment.
4.6 In contrast the learned Additional Government
Advocate filed statement of objections placing
reliance on Rule 10 of Karnataka Civil Services
1
(General Recruitment Rules), 1977 , to contend that
the suitability of the petitioner based on his or her
character was one of the criteria for granting
approval to her appointment. In that view of the
matter, the District Screening Committee felt that the
character of the petitioner is undesirable and
therefore did not grant approval. The District
Screening Committee had verified the character of
the petitioner in the light of the criminal case
1
"the Rules, 1977"
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:36309-DB
CCC No. 732 of 2025
C/W WA No. 1603 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010396152025
registered against her and passed the impugned
order, which is just and proper.
4.7 It was further contented forcefully that the petitioner
is sought to be appointed as a Teacher and is
therefore expected to have good conduct.
4.8 The Writ Court having considered the rival
submissions was of the opinion that the petitioner
was appointed by respondent No.6 on 24.12.2022 as
an Assistant Teacher- Science (CBZ) and she has
reported to duty on 26.12.2022 is not in dispute. The
allegations made in the crime registered and
subsequently charge sheet filed stated supra, was
primarily against accused Nos.1, 2 and 3. The
allegation against the petitioner (accused No.4) was
that she exhorted the other accused to commit the
crime.
4.9 The Writ Court further opined that the charge sheet
filed against petitioner is yet to be proved and the
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:36309-DB
CCC No. 732 of 2025
C/W WA No. 1603 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010396152025
petitioner is presumed to be innocent, until that time
a mere filing of charge sheet did not in any way
demonstrate any adverse character of the petitioner,
disentitling her to be appointed to the post of a
Teacher, as she is entitled to raise all defenses
available in law to protect herself from being
prosecuted. The respondents could not have treated
this as a disqualification to disapprove the
appointment of the petitioner. The Writ Court taking
note of the language used in Rule 10 of the Rules,
1977, finds that the rule merely warrants verification
of certificates pertaining to qualification, income and
caste etc., to check their authenticity and in terms of
the same, she has to furnish certificates as
contemplated in such Rules.
4.10 It is not the case of the respondents that petitioner
has not furnished two character certificates from two
respectable persons who are unconnected with the
Institution and not related to her. Further, the Writ
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:36309-DB
CCC No. 732 of 2025
C/W WA No. 1603 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010396152025
Court has found that there is no provision in the
Rules, 1977, which enables the respondents to deny
the relief of approval of appointment and admitting
the petitioner to salary grant, on the ground of
pendency of criminal case. In that view of the
matter, the Writ Court concluded that the
endorsement issued is not sustainable in law and
accordingly, quashed and directed respondent Nos.2
to 4 to take proper and effective steps to approve the
appointment of the petitioner and also to admit her
appointment to salary grant, in accordance with law,
in a time bound manner. It is this order passed by
the Writ Court is called in question.
5. Heard Sri.M.N.Sudev Hegde, learned Additional
Government Advocate for respondent/appellants and
Sri.Sateesh N.Kottalalgi, learned counsel for
Sri.M.P.Srikanth, learned counsel for petitioner/
respondent No.1.
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:36309-DB
CCC No. 732 of 2025
C/W WA No. 1603 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010396152025
6. Sri.M.N.Sudev Hegde, placing reliance on the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF
2
U.P. & ANOTHER VS. DINESH KUMAR , with all force
submits that, non-disclosure of pending criminal case
against the petitioner, debars her from claiming any
appointment, wherein she will be admitted to grant. The
pendency of the case, the offences punishable are under
Sections 114, 323, 324, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of
IPC pending before the concerned Court against the
petitioner, as on the date of filing of the application and
appointment and the proposal sent for approval. In that
view of the matter, the order passed by the Writ Court is
not sustainable in law and accordingly sought to allow the
appeal, set aside the order passed by the Writ Court and
consequently dismiss the petition, confirming the
endorsement issued by respondent No.4.
2
SLP (C)No.20292/2025 Dt:12.01.2026
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:36309-DB
CCC No. 732 of 2025
C/W WA No. 1603 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010396152025
7. In contrast, Sri.Sateesh N.Kottalagi, learned
counsel appearing for Sri.M.P.Srikanth, learned counsel for
the petitioner/ respondent No.1 submits that there is
nothing in the advertisement, that prescribes regarding
any disclosure. What is prescribed in the advertisement is,
calling for application from the candidates, showing the
number of posts and informing the eligible candidates to
submit their application along with their name and
educational qualification, age, disability etc., details along
with Xerox copy of all educational records attested by the
Gazetted Officer with appropriate fees and the application
should be submitted to the concerned Secretary, Rural
Education Society, Kanakapura, within 21 days from the
date of publication and a copy of the application should be
submitted separately to the Deputy Director (Admini),
Department of Public Instruction, Ramanagar District,
Ramanagara. There is no prescribed format to furnish
information. Obviously the petitioner has filed her
application against the post with all requisite documents
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:36309-DB
CCC No. 732 of 2025
C/W WA No. 1603 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010396152025
which have been considered in her favour and the
petitioner was issued appointment order. When the matter
was sent for approval, some of the family members having
family feud against the petitioner made certain objection,
stating that criminal case is pending against the petitioner,
cannot be a sole reason for disqualifying the petitioner and
rejecting her proposal to appoint her to the salary grant by
means of approval.
8. Further, the learned counsel submits that there
is no provision in the Rules, 1977, which suggests that the
respondent could deny the relief of approval of
appointment and admitting the appointment of the
petitioner to salary grant on the ground of pendency of the
criminal case. He further submits that Crl.P.No.8959/2023
is filed calling in question the charge sheet filed against
the petitioner and this Court granted interim stay. In that
view of the matter, the order passed by the Writ Court is
well within the four of law and does not call for any
interference.
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:36309-DB
CCC No. 732 of 2025
C/W WA No. 1603 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010396152025
9. Having considered the rival submissions, we
have perused the entire writ appeal paper.
10. At the outset, it is apt to state that the
judgment relied on by the learned Additional Government
Advocate with respect to his contention of non-disclosure
of criminal case cannot be countenanced as the charges
pending therein are the offences punishable under
Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 and 325 IPC and in Crime
No.215/2018 for the offences punishable under Section
354D of IPC and Section 12 of Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The offences mentioned are
heinous and cannot be termed as trivial in nature. It is in
this regard, the Supreme Court has held that the order
passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the Division
Bench, were against the law and set aside the order
allowing the appeal, placing reliance on the maxim in law
' dura lex sed lex' , which means the law is harsh, but it is
the law. The non-disclosure of heinous crime was the
circumstances in the said case, which has costed the
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:36309-DB
CCC No. 732 of 2025
C/W WA No. 1603 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010396152025
appointment of the respondents in the judgment passed
by the Supreme Court.
11. Coming to the facts of the present case, the
offences alleged are trivial in nature and the only
allegation against the petitioner is that she allegedly
exhorted the other family members to commit the crime.
Except this allegation, no particular allegations against her
have been made and all the allegations have been made
against accused Nos.1 to 3.
12. The Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF
WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS VS. MITUL KUMAR
3
JANA in paragraph No.16, after relying the judgment of
4
AVTAR SINGH VS UNION OF INDIA , and extracting
the paragraph No.38 of the said judgment has held that
the issue of suppression of material information where the
case does not involve any heinous or serious offences and
trivial in nature and also not involving moral turpitude,
3
(2023) 14 SCC 719
4
(2016) 8 SCC 471
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:36309-DB
CCC No. 732 of 2025
C/W WA No. 1603 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010396152025
further taking note of the fact that the accused therein
was acquitted, disposed of the appeal, challenging the
appointment order of the respondent therein.
13. Paragraph No.16 of the judgment afore reads
as under:
" 16 . It is relevant to state here that on the issues
relating to suppression of information and/or submitting
false information and as to the question of b having been
arrested or regarding pendency of a criminal case and
effect of conviction/acquittal in such criminal cases, there
were conflicting opinions of Division Bench judgments of
this Court. On making a reference, the said controversy
has been decided in Avtar Singh v. Union of India. The
Court after considering various judgments has taken a
holistic approach and summarised certain yardsticks in
para 38, which are reproduced as thus: (SCC pp. 507-
508)
"38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to
explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In
view of aforesaid discussion, we summarise our
conclusion thus:
38.1. Information given to the employer by a candidate
as to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of
a criminal case, whether before or after entering
into service must be true and there should be no
- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:36309-DB
CCC No. 732 of 2025
C/W WA No. 1603 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010396152025
suppression or false mention of required
information.
38.2. While passing order of termination of services or
cancellation of candidature for giving false
information, the employer may take notice of
special circumstances of the case, if any, while
giving such information.
38.3. The employer shall take into consideration the
Government orders/instructions/rules, applicable
to the employee, at the time of taking the
decision.
38.4. In case there is suppression or false information
of involvement in a criminal case where conviction
or acquittal had already been recorded before
filling of the application/verification form and such
fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of
the following recourses appropriate to the case
may be adopted-
38.4.1. In a case trivial in nature in which conviction
had been recorded, such as shouting slogans at
young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed
would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for
post in question, the employer may, in its
discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false
information by condoning the lapse.
38.4.2. Where conviction has been recorded in case
which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel
candidature or terminate services of the employee.
38.4.3. If acquittal had already been recorded in a case
involving moral turpitude or offence of
- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:36309-DB
CCC No. 732 of 2025
C/W WA No. 1603 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010396152025
heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it
is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of
reasonable doubt has been given, the and may
take appropriate decision as to the continuance of
the employee.
38.5. In a case where the employee has made
declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case,
the employer still has the right to consider
antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint
the candidate.
38.6. In case when fact has been truthfully declared in
character verification form regarding pendency of
a criminal case of trivial nature, employer, in facts
and circumstances of the case, in its discretion,
may appoint the candidate subject to decision of
such case.
38.7. In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with
respect to multiple pending cases such false
information by itself will assume significance and
an employer may pass appropriate order cancelling
candidature or terminating services as
appointment of a person against whom multiple
criminal cases were pending may not be proper.
38.8. If criminal case was pending but not known to
the candidate at the time of filling the form, still it
may have adverse impact and the appointing
authority would take decision after considering the
seriousness of the crime.
38.9. In case the employee is confirmed in service,
holding Departmental enquiry would be necessary
- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:36309-DB
CCC No. 732 of 2025
C/W WA No. 1603 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010396152025
before passing order of termination/removal or
dismissal on the ground of suppression or
submitting false information in verification form.
38.10. For determining suppression or false information
attestation/verification form has to be specific, not
vague. Only such information which was required
to be specifically mentioned has to be disclosed. If
information not asked for but is relevant comes to
knowledge of the employer the same can be
considered in an objective manner while
addressing the question of fitness. However, in
such cases action cannot be taken on basis of
suppression or submitting false information as to a
fact which was not even asked for.
38.11. Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri
or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be
attributable to him."
(emphasis in original)"
14. In the judgment of AVTAR SINGH supra, the
Supreme Court at paragraph No.38.10, in unequivocal
terms stated that for determining suppression or false
information attestation/verification form has to be specific,
not vague. Only such information which was required to be
specifically mentioned has to be disclosed. If information
not asked for, but is relevant comes to knowledge of the
- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:36309-DB
CCC No. 732 of 2025
C/W WA No. 1603 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010396152025
employer, the same can be considered in an objective
manner while addressing the question of fitness. However,
in such cases, action cannot be taken on basis of
suppression or submitting false information as to a fact
which was not even asked for.
15. The learned Single Judge of Kerala High Court
in WP(C)No.14684/2025 (one of us i.e., Hon'ble Mr.
Justice D.K.Singh) , relying on the judgments of Supreme
Court in STATE OF WEST BENGAL supra as well as
AVTAR SINGH supra, in W.P.No.17573/2023 , and
further relying on the judgment of Supreme Court in the
5
case of RAMKUMAR VS. STATE OF UTTARPRADESH
has held that, non-disclosure of two minor cases, which
were later on quashed and closed, one by High Court and
another by paying the fine, would not itself make the
petitioner unsuitable for the post of Driver. The concluding
paragraph Nos.18 and 19 which reads as under:
5
2011 (14) SCC 709
- 23 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:36309-DB
CCC No. 732 of 2025
C/W WA No. 1603 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010396152025
" 18 . Considering the view taken by the Supreme
Court in the cases cited above, I am of the view that the
non-disclosure of two criminal cases against the
petitioner, which were quashed and compounded, would
not be fatal to the petitioner's suitability to the post
inasmuch as the cases are not serious in character and do
not involve the petitioner's moral turpitude. The
competent authority has not considered these aspects
while issuing the impugned notices of termination and
relieving order in Exts.P7 and P8.
19 . In view of the aforesaid discussion, the
impugned orders in Exts.P7 and P8 are set aside, and the
nd
matter is remitted back to the 2 respondent to consider
afresh that whether the petitioner would be non-suitable
to hold the post of Driver Mechanical Transport because of
the non-disclosure of two criminal cases which were
quashed and compounded as mentioned above. The said
nd
decision of the 2 respondent must be on the basis of the
nd
law as discussed above. On remand, the 2 respondent
should take the decision afresh within a period of one
month after affording an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner."
16. In view of the dictum made by the Supreme
Court in the cases supra, non-disclosure of petty offences
which does not involve moral turpitude, cannot be a
circumstances to be considered as disqualification when no
- 24 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:36309-DB
CCC No. 732 of 2025
C/W WA No. 1603 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010396152025
provision under Rules, 1977, including Rule 10 suggests to
that effect. It is germane to mention here that as rightly
submitted by Sri.Sateesh N.Kottalagi, there is nothing to
suggest in the advertisement published in the newspaper
dated 10.10.2022, except inviting application along with
particulars of educational qualification, certificate and
prescribed fee, regarding disclosure of criminal cases.
There is no prescribed format which prescribes the
columns regarding disclosure of criminal cases against the
candidate.
17. We find no infirmities in the order passed by the
Writ Court allowing the writ petition, quashing the
endorsement and directing the respondents stated supra.
In that view of the matter, writ appeal sans merit and
accordingly, dismissed . The respondent-State/appellants
herein granted two months time to comply the order
passed by the Writ Court.
- 25 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:36309-DB
CCC No. 732 of 2025
C/W WA No. 1603 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010396152025
18. The contempt in CCC No.732/2025 is filed by
the petitioner for non-compliance of order passed by the
Writ Court.
19. In view of dismissal of appeal and extension of
time for compliance, the contempt petition does not
survive for consideration at this juncture and is
accordingly, dropped .
20. In view of dismissal of appeal, all pending
interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(D K SINGH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(T.M.NADAF)
JUDGE
RR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9
ct-vn