SMT.MAHABOOBI vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15739-DB
WP No. 105088 of 2016

CNR: KAHC020020282016


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD


ND
DATED THIS THE 22 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

AND

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE HEMA KULKARNI

WRIT PETITION NO. 105088 OF 2016 (S-KAT)


BETWEEN:

SMT. MAHABOOBI I.RISALDAR
D/O. ISMAILSAB RISALDAR,
AGE: 39 YEARS,
OCC: UNEMPLOYED,
R/O: THONKALSHAGALLI,
INDI, DIST: BIJAPUR.






…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MADANGOUDA N. PATIL,ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (PRIMARY),
M.S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU – 560001.

2. THE DIRECTOR (PRIMARY EDUCATION),
THE COMMISSIONER OF
PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
NRUPATUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU – 560001.




Digitally signed
by RAKESH S
HARIHAR
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
CHIKKODI EDUCATIONAL DISTRICT,
CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15739-DB
WP No. 105088 of 2016

CNR: KAHC020020282016

4. MOHAMMOD HANIF BABUSAB JARI,
ASSISTANT TEACHER,
GOVERNMENT KANNADA HIGHER
PRIMARY SCHOOL, PARMANANDWADI,
RAIBAG TALUK,
BELAGAVI DISTRICT – 591329.
…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA FOR R1 TO R3)


THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
KINDLY ALLOW THE PETITION; TO KINDLY QUASH OR ISSUE
AN ORDER OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED 11.01.2016 PASSED IN APPLICATION NUMBER
7230/2013, PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU, VIDE ANNEXURE – C AND A
DIRECTION BE ISSUED TO THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2 TO
SELECT THE PETITIONER TO THE POST OF ASSISTANT
TEACHER IN HINDI UNDER CATEGORY – II B G.M. CATEGORY
IN RECRUITMENT TO THE POSTS OF ASSISTANT TEACHER IN
CHIKKODI EDUCATIONAL DISTRICT FOR THE YEAR 2001-2002
OR BY CREATING AN ADDITIONAL POST UNDER CATEGORY – II
B WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS. TO KINDLY QUASH
OR ISSUE AN ORDER IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI
QUASHING THE SELECTION AND APPOINTMENT OF
RESPONDENT NO.4 AS IT IS ILLEGAL, VIDE ANNEXURE – A
DATED 29.01.2022, TO
¸ÀASÉå: E2: ¥Áæ.±Á.²: £ÉêÀÄPÀ:1:2001-02;
KINDLY GRANT OTHER ORDER OR RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT IN
THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN HAND; TO
KINDLY CALL FOR RECORDS.

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
AND
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE HEMA KULKARNI

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15739-DB
WP No. 105088 of 2016

CNR: KAHC020020282016


ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA )


The petitioner is before the Court calling in question an
order of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’ for short) dated
11.01.2016 rejecting Application No.7230/2013 by which the
claim of the petitioner for being selected as an Assistant
Teacher under category ‘III B’ comes to be rejected.


2. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:

The respondent –State issues a notification in 2001 calling
for applications from eligible candidates for the post of
Assistant Teacher in Hindi. The notification is issued for the
purpose of appointment in Chikkodi Educational District. The
petitioner, finding herself eligible, applies for appointment to
the said post. The provisional list is notified on 21.12.2001, and
the petitioner objects to the provisional list as her name was
not found despite her claim of eligibility. The endorsement then
was issued by respondent No.3 to the petitioner on 29.01.2002,
stating that the petitioner cannot be selected on account of the

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15739-DB
WP No. 105088 of 2016

CNR: KAHC020020282016

anomaly of not having studied the Kannada language. The
petitioner then waits for about 14 years after the issuance of
the endorsement, 13 years after the notification so issued, and
knocks at the doors of the Tribunal in the subject application.
The Tribunal, in the year 2016, noticing the fact that the
petitioner had been issued an endorsement in the year 2002,
itself declines to entertain the plea on the score of delay in
approaching the Tribunal notwithstanding the issuance of the
endorsement in the year 2002. The order of the Tribunal is
called in question before this Court, having been issued10
years ago. The matter is for the first time coming up for its
preliminary hearing, the matter having been dismissed for non-
prosecution and non-compliance of office objections not once,
but twice.


3. Heard Sri Madangowda N Patil learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, and Sri Sharad V Magadum,
learned Additional Government Advocate, appearing for the
respondent Nos. 1 to 3.


4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner is fully qualified to hold the post of

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15739-DB
WP No. 105088 of 2016

CNR: KAHC020020282016

Assistant Teacher in terms of the notification. The petitioner
could not have been denied the said appointment by the
respondent and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be
selected even today and would plead that a supernumerary
post be created for the petitioner owing to her eligibility. He
would seek quashment of the order of the Tribunal.


5. The learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.
Sharad V. Magadum, representing the State, would however
refute the submissions of the petitioner, contending that a
notification of the year 2001 is called in question 12 years later
before the Tribunal and the order of the Tribunal in 2016. The
matter is still pending, and on the score of delay itself, the
learned Government Advocate submits that the petition be
dismissed.


6. We have given our anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have
perused the material on record.


7. The afore-narrated facts are all a matter of record.
They would not require any iteration. The notification issued for
the Chikkodi Educational District by the respondent in 2001 is a

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15739-DB
WP No. 105088 of 2016

CNR: KAHC020020282016

matter of record. The petitioner applies to the said post in the
same year, finds herself not being present in the provisional
select list and eventually in the final select list as well. An
endorsement is issued quoting the reason for non-selection on
29.01.2002, even according to the petitioner. The endorsement
was that the petitioner did not have the qualification of
knowledge of the Kannada language for becoming a teacher
pursuant to the notification. Therefore, the petitioner keeps
quiet on her non-selection not for a year or two but for 14
years. After about 14 years, knocks at the doors of the
Tribunal, calling in question the selection process and her non-
selection. The Tribunal rejects it on the ground of delay, and
today we are considering the claim of the petitioner for
appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher after about 24
years of issuance of the notification.


8. The submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that she is qualified and today she has no means of
living.Therefore, this Court should exercise its jurisdiction and
grant an appointment in terms of the qualifications of the
petitioner. The submission is noted only to be rejected. As

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15739-DB
WP No. 105088 of 2016

CNR: KAHC020020282016

misplaced sympathy alone cannot yield to the issuance of a writ
at the hands of this Court.


9. It becomes apposite to refer to the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of SHIVAMMA v. KARNATAKA
1
HOUSING BOARD , which observes as follows:
“ …. …. ….

70. Thus, Section(s) 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act,
including Section 5, must be understood in the broader
framework of the law of limitation. They cannot be
construed as a gateway to overlook or overcome
the sound principles of ‘ interest reipublicae up sit
finislitium ’ and ‘ vigilantibus non dormientibus jura
subveniunt ’ that are the elementary constituents of
the Limitation Act and all its ideals. It is in the same
breath that we say, that the provision of Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, cannot be read in a manner which is either
derogatory to, or tends to dilute the aforesaid
fundamental edifice of the law of limitation to a mere ad-
lib.

71.In this regard we may refer to the decision
of this Court in Hameed Joharan (Dead) v. Abdul
Salam (Dead) by LRs, (2001) 7 SCC 573, wherein it
was observed that the general policy of the law of
limitation encapsulated in the Limitation Act is to
favour the use of legal diligence. Expounding the
maxim of ‘ vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura
subveniunt ’ it was held that a court of law never
tolerates an indolent litigant since delay defeats
equity. It further held that lapse of time is a species
for forfeiture of right. The relevant observations
read as under:—

“14. Needless to record that
engrossment of stamped paper would
undoubtedly render the decree executable

1
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15739-DB
WP No. 105088 of 2016

CNR: KAHC020020282016

but that does not mean and imply, however,
that the enforceability of the decree would
remain suspended until furnishing of the
stamped paper — this is opposed to the
fundamental principle on which the statutes
of limitation are founded. It cannot but be
the general policy of our law to use the legal
diligence and this has been the consistent
legal theory from the ancient times: even
the doctrine of prescription in Roman law
prescribes such a concept of legal diligence
and since its incorporation therein, the
doctrine has always been favoured rather
than claiming disfavour. Law courts never
tolerate an indolent litigant since delay
defeats equity — the Latin maxim
vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura
subveniunt (the law assists those who are
vigilant and not those who are indolent). As
a matter of fact, lapse of time is a species
for forfeiture of right. Wood, V.C. in Manby
v. Bewicke (K&J at p. 352) stated: (ER p.
1144)

“The legislature has in this,
as in every civilized country that
has ever existed, thought fit to
prescribe certain limitations of
time after which persons may
suppose themselves to be in
peaceful possession of their
property, and capable of
transmitting the estates of which
they are in possession, without any
apprehension of the title being
impugned by litigation in respect
of transactions which occurred at a
distant period, when evidence in
support of their own title may be
most difficult to obtain.””

(Emphasis supplied)

72.As aptly noted in Hameed Joharan (supra),
lapse of time is a specie for forfeiture of right,
which is why where a litigant allows the limitation
to expire for any right or remedy, due to its own
volition, be it in the form of, inaction, lethargy,
negligence or mistake, which could have been
avoided, no indulgence should ordinarily be shown
by the courts in entertaining or enforcing the

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15739-DB
WP No. 105088 of 2016

CNR: KAHC020020282016

assertion of such rights, de hors, the litigant
otherwise demonstrating a cause for such delay,
which may as well also fit within any of the
parameters of the exceptions carved out within
Section(s) 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act.

Rewa Coal
73. Thus, the reasoning of this Court in
Fields
(supra) that the parameters of ‘bona-fides’,
‘diligence’ or ‘inaction’ of the litigant have no bearing on
relevance for the purpose of construing Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, in the absence of any express language in
this regard being couched in the provision is flawed.
These parameters flow directly from the maxim
‘ vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt ’
enshrined in the Limitation Act, albeit to varying
degrees depending upon the provision in question,
but by no stretch are they excluded from
application, wantonly or otherwise, in any provision
thereof. Merely because the provision does not explicitly
lay down any of the aforesaid parameters cannot be
construed to mean that the legislative intent behind the
provision also, was to not allude to the same.”

(Emphasis supplied)

The Apex Court in the afore-quoted judgment re-iterates
that it is trite that the law protects the diligent and not the
indolent. The petitioner having kept quiet for about 14 years
initially, and today our consideration being for a notification of
a vintage of a quarter of a century, cannot mean that a writ
would lie to upset the apple cart that has already grown
pursuant to the notification and selection of the candidates
already in place.

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15739-DB
WP No. 105088 of 2016

CNR: KAHC020020282016


10. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition stands
dismissed .



Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE




Sd/-
(HEMA KULKARNI)
JUDGE


RSH/CT: ASC
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2