Karnataka HC Sets Aside Gram Sahayak Appointment After Rejected Applicant Was Reconsidered Without Recorded Reasons, Orders Fresh Interviews For 15 Candidates

A notification dated 6 November 2023 invited applications for the post of Gram Sahayak in Kakameri Grama Panchayat.

Of 25 applicants, 10 applications were initially rejected for deficiencies; the petitioner’s application was among the 15 accepted applications.

Respondent No. 5’s application was rejected on 28 November 2023 for failure to produce specified documents, but he was later permitted to attend the interview and computer test on 16 December 2023.

On 15 July 2024, the Tahsildar appointed respondent No. 5.

The petitioner challenged that appointment, contending that respondent No. 5’s rejected application had been reconsidered without a recorded request or reason.

The State submitted that the applications had been re-scrutinised and that respondent No. 5 was selected on merit, but produced no record supporting the alleged request for reconsideration.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

It applied the principles that a public appointment process must be conducted lawfully and without arbitrary treatment, and that a rejected application cannot be reopened without a disclosed and supportable basis in the record.

The Court cited no specific statute or precedent; these principles were applied to the selection process on the facts of the case.

Respondent No. 5’s application had been rejected on the Tahsildar’s direction for failure to provide specified documents, yet he was later allowed to participate in the interview and computer test.

The State’s explanation that this occurred following an oral request was unsupported by the proceedings or note sheets; nor did the record disclose reasons for re-scrutiny or identify the applicants whose applications were reconsidered.

The Court therefore found the reconsideration and resulting appointment arbitrary and unsustainable.

It directed the Tahsildar to redo the appointment process from the interview stage, limited to the 15 applications initially found to be in order, after notifying all 15 candidates, including the petitioner, and to make the appointment on merit and in accordance with law.

The exercise was to be completed within four weeks, with the matter listed for compliance on 23 November 2026.