Selection authorities must consider objections to provisional lists in accordance with prior court directions.

Following a 28 February 2023 notification for Gram Panchayat Library Supervisor posts, Ravi and respondent No. 7 applied for the post at Muradi Gram Panchayat.

After a provisional list was issued, Ravi objected to respondent No. 7’s eligibility, alleging that she lacked the prescribed Library Science certificate.

In an earlier writ petition, the High Court directed the authorities to consider his objections and thereafter notify a select list.

The authorities subsequently issued respondent No. 7 an appointment order and an endorsement stating that she had been selected, without addressing Ravi’s objection.

Ravi challenged both documents and sought reconsideration of his candidature.

Respondent No. 7 had joined duty on 21 February 2026 and was continuing in service when the present petition was heard.

1. Whether the endorsement dated 21 February 2026 complied with the earlier direction to consider Ravi’s objection to the provisional list.

2. Whether Rules 5 and 13(2) of the 2022 Rules permitted consideration of a candidate without the prescribed Library Science certificate, and how the selection criteria were to be applied.

The Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj (Gram Panchayat Library and Information Center Supervisors Service) Rules, 2022 governed the selection. Rule 5 prescribes the educational qualification, including PUC, a certificate course in Library Science, and a minimum three-month computer course.

Rule 13(2), concerning selection where a candidate possessing the Library Science certificate is unavailable, must be read conjointly with Rule 5; the reference to “degree” in Rule 13(2) does not alter the qualification prescribed by Rule 5.

Further, where a court has directed an authority to consider an objection, the authority must actually address that objection; an endorsement that merely states that another candidate was selected does not demonstrate compliance with that direction.

The Court found that the endorsement did not state or indicate that Ravi’s objection had been considered; it merely recorded respondent No. 7’s selection. It therefore failed to comply with the earlier direction to consider the objection.

On the qualification issue, the Court accepted that Rules 5 and 13(2) had to be read together and that the word “degree” in Rule 13(2) did not displace Rule 5’s qualification requirements.

Rather than disturbing respondent No. 7’s appointment immediately, the Court directed the authorities to decide Ravi’s objection in accordance with law, keeping its interpretation of the Rules in view.

The endorsement dated 21 February 2026 was quashed to the extent that it failed to address Ravi’s objection, and the matter was remanded to respondent No. 2 to decide that objection within four weeks.

Respondent No. 7’s appointment was not to be disturbed pending that decision, and she was permitted to continue as Library Supervisor; the appointment remained subject to the outcome of the objection.