THE MANAGING DIRCTOR AND ANR vs ABUBAKAR AND ORS
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11543-DB
WA No. 200139 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030013082025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
TH
DATED THIS THE 27 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO
WRIT APPEAL NO. 200139 OF 2025 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. THE MANAGING DIRCTOR,
HESCOM, DHARWAD ROAD,
HUBBALLI- 580 020.
2. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER (O AND M),
HESCOM OFFICE,
NEAR BDA OFFICE, BAGEWADI ROAD,
VIJAYAPUR – 586 101.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI GANESH SUBHASHCHANDRA KALBURGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. ABUBAKAR
S/O ABDULSATTAR KARAJAGI,
AGE : 33 YEARS,
OCC : NIL,
R/O: J.M. ROAD, HARIYALGALLI,
(MOHAMADIYA COLONY),
VIJAYAPUR – 586 101.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
Digitally
signed by
SHIVALEELA
D UDAGI
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11543-DB
WA No. 200139 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030013082025
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY,
NO.241, VIKAS SOUDHA,
BENGALURU – 560 001.
3. THE DIRECTOR, KPTCL
(ADM & HUMAN RESOURCES),
BENGALURU – 560 001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SACHIN M. MAHAJAN, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI SANJAY M.JOSHI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, AGA FOR R2;
SRI RAVINDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECITON 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS
APPEAL AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DATED
17.09.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN
W.P.NO.208448/2017 AND TO PASS ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE
ORDER AS MAY BE DEEMED NECESSARY IN THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11543-DB
WA No. 200139 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030013082025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)
This intra-court appeal is filed challenging the order dated
17.09.2024 passed in WP No.208448/2017.
2. The Brief facts giving rise to filing of this appeal are
as under:
The appellants issued a recruitment notification
inviting applications for the recruitment of Junior Lineman posts
with 72 posts were reserved for individuals for hearing
impairments on 12.06.2015. Pursuant to the recruitment
notification, respondent No.1 had applied for the said post
under the hearing impaired category. It is contended that the
respondent No.1 applied for the Junior Lineman post under the
said category and submitted the records indicating that he is
both deaf and dumb. The appellants reviewed the respondent's
application and noted that while he qualified as a hearing
impaired, his additional condition of being dumb exceeded the
eligibility criteria and the application of the respondent No.1
was rejected vide order dated 01.06.2017. Respondent No.1
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11543-DB
WA No. 200139 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030013082025
aggrieved by the order dated 01.06.2017, approached this
Court in WP No.208448/2017. The learned Single Judge by
order dated 17.09.2024 allowed the writ petition and quashed
the impugned endorsement and directed the appellants herein
to include his name in the final selection list having better
merits among the candidates and also at Sl.No.1330 vide
Annexure-L. The appellants aggrieved by the order passed by
the learned Single Judge, has filed this intra-court appeal.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the
appellants and Sri.Sachin M. Mahajan on behalf of Sri.Sanjay
M. Joshi, for respondent No.1, Sri.Veeranagouda Malipatil,
learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.2
and Sri.Ravindra Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.3.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
learned Single Judge has committed an error in passing the
impugned judgment. He submits that the appellants have
rightly rejected the claim of the respondent No.1 on the ground
that he has both deaf and dumb and the post was identified as
one which would be filled up by partially deaf persons. The
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11543-DB
WA No. 200139 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030013082025
action of the appellants in rejecting the application of the
respondent No.1 is just and proper. The learned Single Judge
without considering the said facts passed an impugned order.
Accordingly, prays to allow the appeal.
5. Per contra Sri.Sachin Mahajan appearing for
Sri.Sanjay M. Joshi, submits that the respondent No.1 is deaf
and dumb and he has applied for the post of Lineman under the
category of hearing impaired and he is eligible for the said post.
He submits that the appellants have commistted an error in
rejecting the application of the petitioner without considering
Section 2(i) of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal
Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act,
1995 (for short, ‘the Act, 1995). He submits that the learned
Single Judge was justified in passing the impugned order.
Accordingly, prays to dismiss the appeal.
6. Perused the records and considered the
submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
7. It is an undisputed fact that the appellants have
issued a recruitment notification inviting application for the post
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11543-DB
WA No. 200139 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030013082025
of Junior Lineman. Pursuant to the said notification, the
respondent No.1 has applied for the post of Lineman under the
category of hearing impaired. The respondent No.1 has
produced the medical records to establish that he is a deaf and
dumb.
8. In order to consider the case on hand, it is
necessary to examine the definition of disability as defined
under Section 2(i) of the Act, 1995, which reads as follows:
i)"disability" means-
(i) blindness;
(ii) low vision;
(iii) leprosy-cured;
(iv) hearing impairment;
(v) locomotor disability;
(vi) mental retardation;
(vii) mental illness;
9. As could be seen from the definition of disability
hearing impairment is also a disability as defined under Section
2(i) of the Act, 1995. The learned Single Judge considering the
definition of hearing impairment has rightly held that the
petitioner is eligible for the said post under the hearing
impairment category and passed the impugned order.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11543-DB
WA No. 200139 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030013082025
10. This is an intra-court appeal filed by the appellant.
The scope of intra-court appeal is jurisdiction is warranted only
where the judgment or order under challenge is demonstrably
erroneous or suffers from perversity. Such jurisdiction ought
not to be invoked merely because another view is possible on
the same set of facts. The intra-court appellate Bench ought
not to substitute its own view, merely because such Bench
considers its view to be better than the one taken by the Single
Bench.
11. In view of the same, we do not find any error or
suffers from perversity in the impugned order. We declined to
interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, we proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
dismissed
The writ appeal is .
Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO)
JUDGE
SDU;LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 1