VEERESHWARI D/O APPARAO PATIL vs THE DIRECTOR AND ORS

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10561-DB
WP No. 201151 of 2023


CNR: KAHC030028672023


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA


KALABURAGI BENCH

TH
DATED THIS THE 30 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO

WRIT PETITION NO. 201151 OF 2023 (S-KSAT)


BETWEEN:

SMT. VEERESHWARI D/O APPARAO PATIL,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O. H.NO. 3-1006, BEHIND BIG BAZAAR,
JAGAT GAZIPUR, KALABURAGI.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. P. VILAS KUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR
SRI. NITESH PADIYAL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE DIRECTOR,
DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE,
VOKKALIGARA BHAVAN,
N. R. ROAD,
BENGALURU- 01.

2. THE SECRETARY,
KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
PARK ROAD,
BENGALURU- 560001.

3. REKHA
AGE: MAJOR, AT. POST KADAGANCHI,









Digitally signed
by VARSHA N
RASALKAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10561-DB
WP No. 201151 of 2023


CNR: KAHC030028672023

TQ. ALAND,
DIST. KALABURAGI- 585101.

[DELETED AS PER THE DIRECTIONS OF THE
HON’BLE COURT DATED 30.10.2023]


…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. MAYA T. RAJANNA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. R.J. BHUSARE, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
V/O DTD.30.10.2023 R3 IS DELETED)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A)
ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI FOR QUASHING THE IMPUGNED
ORDER PASSED BY KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL, KALABURAGI DATED 30-07-2021 IN APPLICATION
NO.9162/2018, WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-B. B)
CONSEQUENTLY, ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI THEREBY
QUASHING THE IMPUGNED FINAL SELECTION LIST DATED 12-
12-2018 BEARING NO. E (2) 1428/2018-19/PSC AS PER
ND
ANNEXURE-A-12 SUPRA ISSUED BY THE 2 RESPONDENT IN
RD
SO FAR AS 3 RESPONDENT IS CONCERNED IS ILLEGAL,
ARBITRARY AND UNSUSTAINABLE IN NATURE. C) ISSUE A
DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS THEREBY
ST ND
DIRECTING THE 1 AND 2 RESPONDENTS TO SELECT THE
PETITIONER FOR THE POST OF EXCISE SUB-INSPECTOR AND
ISSUE APPOINTMENT ORDER TO SUCH AN EXTENT AS PER THE
SAID SELECTION NOTIFICATION VIDE ANNEXURE-A-1 SUPRA,
AND D) PASS ANY SUCH OTHER ORDER OR ORDERS IF THIS
HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER THE GIVEN
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE INCLUDING THE AWARD OF
THE COSTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. E) ISSUE A DIRECTION IN
THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI THEREBY QUASHING THE
IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 21-01-2019 ISSUED BY THE
ND
2 RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-A-13 SUPRA. F) ISSUE
DIRECTION IN NATURE OF CERTIORARI THEREBY QUASHING
THE IMPUGNED OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM DATED 21-06-2019
BEARING NO. ECE/50/AAWONI/APT/DRC/2018-19 VIDE
ST
ANNEXURE-A-16 SUPRA ISSUED BY THE 1 RESPONDENT AS
ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND UNSUSTAINABLE IN NATURE. G)

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10561-DB
WP No. 201151 of 2023


CNR: KAHC030028672023

ISSUE ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER FOR WHICH THE
PETITIONER FOUND ENTITLED TO BE AWARDED.

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON 28.09.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDERS THIS DAY, ASHOK S. KINAGI J. , MADE THE
FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO

CAV ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)

The petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the
order dated 30.07.2021 passed in Application
No.9162/2018 by the Karnataka State Administrative
Tribunal, Bengaluru (‘ Tribunal ’ for short).
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this petition
are as follows:
2.1. The petitioner, on procuring the required
qualification of B.Sc., working as Assistant Teacher at the
Government Higher Primary School, Kodaduru from 2010
on permanent basis. Respondent No.1-Department had
issued a recruitment notification dated 28.02.2017 inviting

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10561-DB
WP No. 201151 of 2023


CNR: KAHC030028672023

applications for the post of Excise Sub-Inspectors and
Excise Guards for both male and female as per the
Karnataka Excise Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1996 and
amended Rules, 2009 as well as the Government order
dated 07.11.2016 through online. The total number of
vacant posts of Excise Sub-Inspectors were 177 and out of
177 posts, 145 posts were allotted in favour of non-
Hyderabad Karnataka region candidates and 32 posts were
earmarked and allotted in favour of Hyderabad Karnataka
region candidates. Pursuant to the said recruitment
notification, the petitioner and respondent No.3 i.e.,
Rekha, and others appeared for the written test.
Thereafter, a notice was issued on 04.07.2018 for
verification of original documents and cut-off marks dated
06.09.2018 was published for each category. As per the
list of cut-off marks, 94 was the cut-off marks for category
3B/women. The petitioner has scored 96 marks and
respondent No.3 has scored 94 marks, which is lesser than
the marks scored by the petitioner. Respondent No.2 has

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10561-DB
WP No. 201151 of 2023


CNR: KAHC030028672023

published the provisional selection list dated 27.09.2018,
in which the name of respondent No.3 was shown instead
of the petitioner. The petitioner has submitted objections
to the provisional selection list. Respondent No.2, ignoring
the objections filed by the petitioner, has published the
final selection list dated 12.12.2018, thereby selecting
respondent No.3, who is less meritorious than the
petitioner. The petitioner, aggrieved by the final selection
list, approached the Tribunal in Application No.9162/2018.
2.2. Respondent No.2 filed a statement of objections
before the Tribunal contending that, respondent No.1
issued a recruitment notification dated 28.02.2017 inviting
applications through respondent No.2 to various posts in
the Excise Department by laying down the eligibility
criteria. Resopndent No.3 had submitted the application
through online along with the certificate under category
3B/women. Respondent No.1 had called for document
verification and respondent No.3 had submitted her
original certificates for verification, thereafter, her name

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10561-DB
WP No. 201151 of 2023


CNR: KAHC030028672023

was shown in the provisional selection list. It was
contended that, the petitioner had not filed any objection
within 7 days from 27.09.2018. After the expiry of 7 days,
the petitioner had submitted her objections. Respondent
No.2 had published the final selection list and respondent
No.3 had been selected. It was contended that, the
petitioner had not produced the no-objection certificate
( NOC ) along with the application. Hence, the petitioner
was not selected for non-furnishing of NOC. Hence, the
action of respondent No.2 in selecting respondent No.3 is
just and proper. Hence, prays to dismiss the application.
2.3. The Tribunal, after hearing the learned counsel
for the parties, dismissed the application vide order dated
30.07.2021.
3. The petitioner, aggrieved by the order passed in
Application No.9162/2018 by the Tribunal, and impugned
final selection list, appointment order, endorsement and
official memorandum, filed this petition.

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10561-DB
WP No. 201151 of 2023


CNR: KAHC030028672023

4. Heard the arguments of Sri. P.Vilas Kumar,
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner,
learned AGA for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for
respondent No.2.
5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that, the condition of producing NOC
imposed in the recruitment notification is not mandatory;
on the other hand, it is a directory. He further submits
that, the petitioner was in possession of NOC obtained
from the earlier department where she was working,
however, the current NOC was not produced along with
the application online and she has submitted her
objections. The petitioner cannot be thrown out on the
technical grounds of non-furnishing of NOC. The object of
insisting NOC is to verify the antecedents of a candidate,
whether any loans are due, etc. He submits that, the
petitioner had scored more marks than respondent No.3
and the petitioner was entitled for selection. On the
contrary, respondent No.2 had not selected the petitioner.

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10561-DB
WP No. 201151 of 2023


CNR: KAHC030028672023

He further submits that, respondent No.3 is no more.
Hence, respondent No.1 can accommodate the petitioner.
He submits that, if the petitioner is selected and
appointed, no injustice would be caused to the
Government. To buttress his argument, he has placed
reliance on the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in the case of Ms. Pooja R Vs. The State of
1
Karnataka and Others and also the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dwarika Prasad (D)
2
Thr. LRs Vs. Prithvi Raj Singh . He submits that, the
Tribunal has erred in taking a hyper technical view and
concluding that there was a violation of mandatory
provisions of law. He submits that, the procedure cannot
stand in the way of achieving just and fair outcome.
Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ
petition.

1

WP No.9928/2019, disposed of on 17.07.2019
2

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.11259/2022, disposed of on

20.12.2024

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10561-DB
WP No. 201151 of 2023


CNR: KAHC030028672023

6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2
submits that, the petitioner was required to submit NOC
along with the application as per the recruitment
notification. He submits that, the petitioner has not
submitted the NOC issued by the earlier department. He
submits that, the petitioner had produced the NOC of the
year 2016, but had not produced the NOC as of the date of
submission of the application through online. It means
that the candidature of the petitioner was rejected on the
ground that the petitioner had not produced the NOC from
the earlier department. He further submits that,
respondent No.2 had issued a provisional selection list
wherein the name of respondent No.3 was shown as
selected and objections were called for from the interested
candidates within a period of 7 days from the date of
publication of the provisional selection list. Admittedly, the
petitioner had not filed objections within 7 days from the
date of publication of the provisional list. The petitioner
had submitted objections after the expiry of 7 days from

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10561-DB
WP No. 201151 of 2023


CNR: KAHC030028672023

the date of publication of the provisional list. The
petitioner had not followed the mandatory instructions
mentioned in the recruitment notification. He submits that,
the Tribunal was justified in passing the impugned order.
He further submits that, respondent No.3, pursuant to the
selection and appointment, had reported to the duty and
thereafter, during the pendency of the application before
the Tribunal, respondent No.3 passed away. Once
respondent No.3 being reported to the duty, no right will
accrue to the petitioner for her to be appointed in place of
respondent No.3. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to
dismiss the writ petition.
7. Perused the records and considered the
submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
8. It is an undisputed fact that respondent No.2
had issued a recruitment notification inviting applications
for various posts in Excise Department. Pursuant to the
said recruitment notification, the petitioner, respondent
No.3, and others have submitted applications through

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10561-DB
WP No. 201151 of 2023


CNR: KAHC030028672023

online. As per the recruitment notification, one of the
conditions is that, the candidates should enclose the NOC
from the earlier department. Admittedly, the petitioner has
produced antedated NOC issued by the earlier department
i.e., prior to the issuance of the recruitment notification
i.e., 2016. Respondent No.2 had conducted a written test
and in the written test, the petitioner had scored 96 marks
and respondent No.3 had scored 94 marks. On the basis of
the marks scored by the parties, respondent No.2 has
issued a provisional selection list on 27.09.2018
announcing the names of the candidates who were
selected to the post of Excise Sub-Inspectors. It was also
notified that if anybody had any objections to the
provisional selection list, called upon to submit the
objections within 7 days from the date of publication of the
provisional selection list. The petitioner did not file
objections within 7 days from the date of publication the
provisional selection list, however, filed the objections on

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10561-DB
WP No. 201151 of 2023


CNR: KAHC030028672023

11.10.2018. Respondent No.2 had published the final
selection list on 12.12.2018.
9. Admittedly, the petitioner did not comply with
the instructions mentioned in the recruitment notification
by not furnishing the NOC from the earlier department
along with the application. The conditions mentioned in
the recruitment notification are binding on the candidates.
The eligibility should be assessed based on the last date of
application submission. It is settled law that, eligibility
deadlines in recruitment are non-negotiable and must be
strictly followed. The imposition of conditions is the
principle of ensuring fairness and transparency in public
service recruitment. The recruitment advertisements
constitute a representation to public, and adherence to the
stipulated eligibility criteria is a paramount. Allowing
deviations based on subsequent furnishing of NOC
undermines the integrity of the recruitment process and
contravenes the doctrine of equality. For such reason, the
petitioner failed to meet the requirements mentioned in

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10561-DB
WP No. 201151 of 2023


CNR: KAHC030028672023

the recruitment notification. The Tribunal was justified in
passing the impugned order.
10. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that,
respondent No.3 is no more and respondent No.1 can
accommodate the petitioner to said post which is vacant
and to buttress his argument, he has placed reliance on
the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
the case of Ms. Pooja R (supra), whereby the Co-ordinate
Bench has, in paragraph Nos.10 and 11, held as follows:
“10. It is trite to notice that in the present case, it
is not that the petitioner did not process the required
qualification. In fact, as noticed earlier even by taking the
aggregate of the subjects, the petitioner would still be
listed above, having secured 86.25%, whereas the last
person in the general merit list had secured 81.47% and
in 3B category the last person’s percentage was 79.38%.
Therefore, even in the general merit list, the petitioner
would have been placed higher in the merit list.
11. There is no dispute that not all mistakes can be
termed as curable defects. It is only such mistakes like
typographical error or non-mentioning of prefix or suffix
and when the documents would speak for themselves. A

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10561-DB
WP No. 201151 of 2023


CNR: KAHC030028672023

mistake committed in mentioning the aggregate which
otherwise could be verified from the original records that
the petitioner had in fact secured 86.25% could therefore
be termed as a curable defect. It was a pure inadvertence
on the part of the petitioner in not following the
instructions in the Notification. Such defects are definitely
curable defects.”

In the said case, there was a vacant post available. The
Co-ordinate Bench, considering the case sympathetically,
issued a direction to consider the case of the petitioner for
selection to the post of Deputy Range Forest
Officer/Surveyor. Admittedly, in the instant case, the
petitioner had not enclosed NOC from the earlier
department and it is in violation of the terms and
conditions of the recruitment notification. Admittedly, in
the instant case, respondent No.3 had joined and reported
to the duty and during the pendency of the application
before the Tribunal, respondent No.3 passed away. Merely
because of the demise of respondent No.3, the petitioner
will not get a right for the selection to the post of Excise
Sub-Inspector. Respndent No.2 has to issue a fresh

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10561-DB
WP No. 201151 of 2023


CNR: KAHC030028672023

recruitment notification. The order relied upon by the
learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is not applicable
to the case on hand.
11. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has
also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in case of Dwarika Prasad (D) Thr. LRs (supra),
wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in paragraph
No.12 as follows:
“12. From the above cases, it is clear that there
was no need to file a separate application for condonation
of delay in the present case as well. The High Court has
erred in taking a hyper technical view and concluding that
there was violation of mandatory provision of law.
Endorsing such a view would effectively mean ignoring
the purpose of judicial procedure. The procedure cannot
stand in the way of achieving just and fair outcome. In
the present case, the Appellant acted bona fide and
diligently. His conduct does not violate any rule of law.”

Admittedly in the instant case, the learned Senior Counsel
could not point out any hyper technical views taken by the
Tribunal. There is no dispute in regard to the proposition

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10561-DB
WP No. 201151 of 2023


CNR: KAHC030028672023

laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case referred
supra. The said judgment is not applicable to the case on
hand.
12. In view of the above discussion and also in view
of the limited scope of interference under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India, we do not find any error in the
impugned order passed by the Tribunal. Hence, we decline
to interfere with the impugned order.
13. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER

i. The writ petition is dismissed ;

ii. Pending IA(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE


Sd/-
(SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO)
JUDGE

PA
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 40
Ct:pk