1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI

WRIT PETITION NO.14485/2022 (S-KSAT)

BETWEEN:

1. SRINIVASA T
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
S/O THIPPESWAMY K
R/O HULIGERE,
MADALURU (POST),
SIRA TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572137.

2. HAREESH S H
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
HONUMANTHOORDDY
R/O 8, 3RD FLOOR,
8TH MAIN ROAD, 17TH CROSS,
AGRAHARA, DASARAHALLI,
BASAVESHWARANAGARA,
BANGALORE – 560079.

3. LOKESHA V
S/O LATE VENKATAIAH
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/O A.M. DODDI
K.D HALLI POST
MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DIST – 562120.
 2

4. KAMALA BAI E,
D/O ESHWARA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/O #5 SRI SAILAXMINILAYA
LOTTEGOLLAHALLI” R.M.V. 2ND STAGE
BENGALURU – 560094.

5. K.M. MOHAN
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
S/O S. MARIGOWDA
R/O NO-1940, TOP FLOOR,
1ST MAIN, 8TH CROSS, M.C. LAYOUT,
VIJAYANAGARA - 560040.

6. SUDHAKARA REDDY H
S/O HANUMANTHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/O VYCHAKURAHALLI,
RAMAPURA (POST), GAURIBIDANUR,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 561210

7. NAGARAJA B
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
S/O. BEERAPPA,
R/O. KADIRANGARIKOTE,
BAGEPALLI TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT – 563124.

8. RAMESH REDDY T B
S/O BUDDAREDDY
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/O TURIKESHAPALLI-3
CHAKAVEL POST, BAGEPALLI TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DIST – 563124.

9. JAGADESH N.M
S/O HUNMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
H NAASANDRA,
DODEKERUGOWDA POST,
GOURIBEDANURU TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA – 561208.
 3

10. KUMAR V
S/O VENKATANARASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/O NO.70, MANGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
BENGALURU NORTH, SULIKERE POST,
BENGALURU – 560060.

11. GANGARAJU S
S/O SHIVAKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/O HADIHOSAHALLI,
THYAMAGEPALLI HOBLI,
TYAMAGUNDLU, OBANNAPURA POST
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DIST – 562132.

12. GAUTHAM H N
S/O NAGAIAH H S
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/O 139, 7TH MAIN, 7TH CROSS,
POORNA PRAGNA LAYOUT,
UTTARAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560061

13. CHANDRIKA HY.

W/O YARRAPPA H C
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/O NO.2668/35, 12TH MAIN ROAD,
E BLOCK, 3RD CROSS,
SUBRAMANYA NAGARA
RAJAJINAGARA 2ND STAGE,
BANGALORE – 560010.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI RAJASHEKAR, ADV.)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

REP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU – 560001.
 4

2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS
(DPAR SERVICES)
VIKASA SOUDHA,
DR.B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE - 560 001.

3. KARNATAKA PUBLIC
SERVICE COMMISSION
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
“PARK HOUSE”, UDYOGA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.

4. DR. PRAKASH .S
S/O BHARAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/O. NO.1877, 7TH MAIN,
E BLOCK, 2ND STAGE,
RAJAJINAGAR,
BANGALORE – 560010.
... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI ARUNA SHYAM, AAG A/W

SMT. SHILPA S.GOGI, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3.)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A
WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
21/04/2022 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE TRIBUNAL REJECTING THE
INTERIM PRAYER IN APPLICATION NOS. 1191-1204/2022 ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR “ORDERS” THIS

DAY, G.NARENDAR J, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
 5

ORDER

Heard the learned senior counsel Sri D.R. Ravishankar

along with the learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. The petitioners are before this Court being

aggrieved by the order dated 21.04.2022 passed by the

Tribunal on their interlocutory application.

The brief facts are that:

3. The petitioners had moved the applications

No.1191 to 1204/2022 and the same are pending. In the

said applications, the petitioners have sought for the

following reliefs:-

a) “ISSUE a writ, order or direction in the nature of

certiorari quashing the Karnataka Act No.14 of
2022 published in the Official Karnataka Extra-
Ordinary Gazette dated 14-03-2022 Vide No.
DPAL 02 SHASHANA 2022, Bengaluru “Karnataka
Civil Services (Validation of Selection and
Appointment of 2011 Batch Gazetted
Probationers) Act, 2022 as unconstitutional and
ultra-vires as per Annexure – A8 and
 6

b) ISSUE a writ, order or direction in the nature of

mandamus directing the respondents to re-do the
entire selection process by issuing the new
Notification for the appointment of 362 Gazetted
Probationers, exclusively to those candidates who
participated in the said selection process in the
interest of justice and equity;

c) GRANT such other and further reliefs as this

Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and
circumstances of the case.”

4. On a reading of prayer ‘A’ it is seen that the

petitioners have sought for invalidating the Validation Act

being Karnataka Act No.14 of 2022 published in the Gazette

on 14.03.2022 whereby, the selection of Gazetted

Probationers 2011 batch came to be validated.

5. The learned senior counsel Sri A.S. Ponnanna

would invite the attention of the Court to Annexure-B to the

writ petition, being an order of the PIL Bench headed by the

then Hon’ble Chief Justice. The subject and scope of the PIL

was the very same Validation Act. In fact, in para 3 the PIL

Bench has recorded the reliefs sought, which are as under:-

 7

“a) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or

any other appropriate writ, direction or order
declaring the impugned Act, The Karnataka Civil
Services (Validation of Selection and Appointment of
2011 Batch Gazetted Probationers) Act, 2022, Dated
14.03.2022 vide ANNEXURE-J, as being
unconstitutional, illegal and void, and/or

b) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or

any other appropriate writ, direction or orders setting
aside the appointment orders issued dated
22.03.2022, vide ANNEXURE-K in pursuance of the
impugned Act vide ANNEXURE-J.

c) Pass any other orders as may be deemed fit in

the facts and circumstances of this case.”

6. On perusal of the same, it is seen that the relief

sought for in the PIL and the relief sought for in the

applications are virtually one and the same. The PIL Bench

after hearing the counsel for the petitioners therein, has

observed and held in para 6 as under:-

“6. We are of the considered view that the

entire Act would not become bad in law simply
because the earlier selection was challenged in the
High Court and was quashed and thereafter, the
impugned Act has come in force. Learned counsel for
the petitioner has not been able to show any
provision of the impugned Act which can be treated
to be unconstitutional, illegal or void.”
 8

7. From a reading of the above, it is apparent that

the PIL Bench has in fact clothed the Validation Act with

some sanctity. Be that as it may, it is submitted that

subsequent to the dismissal the Public Interest Litigants

have carried it forward to the Hon’ble Apex Court and the

same is pending before the Hon’ble Apex Court.

8. Be that as it may, the subject matter that is

before this Court is the correctness of the Tribunal’s order

dated 21.04.2022 rejecting the interim relief. On a reading

of the impugned order, it is seen that a representation has

been made to the Tribunal, that the PIL filed has been

rejected by this Court and in that view, the tribunal has

deemed it fit to reject the interim relief prayed for by the

petitioners.

9. As noted supra, whether the applications are

maintainable or not in the light of the orders of the PIL

Bench, is an exercise and decision that ought to be

rendered by the Tribunal. Prima-facie, the contention of the

 9

learned senior counsel on behalf of the petitioners that this

Court ought to hear on the maintainability or the otherwise

of the applications, in our opinion is unsustainable. It is

further vehemently contended that this Court ought to

render its opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the

order passed by the PIL Bench, which in our opinion

amounts to sitting in appeal over the order and the same

would amount to a judicial impropriety and hence

impermissible. It is not in dispute that this Court does not

exercise powers of appeal over the orders passed by the

Co-ordinate Bench. That apart, it is also fairly admitted by

both the senior counsels that the issue before the Tribunal

is squarely seized off by the Hon’ble Apex Court. In that

view of the matter, we do not find any warrant to retain the

writ petition on record.

10. Accordingly, writ petition stands rejected. In

view of the fact that the matter is seized off by the Hon’ble

Apex Court, we are of the view that the parties would be

better advised to have the issues agitated and adjudicated

 10

by the Hon’ble Apex Court to avoid considerable duplicity of

litigation.

In view of disposal of the petition, pending I.As. if any,

do not survive for consideration and is accordingly disposed

of.

Sd/-
JUDGE

Sd/-
JUDGE
Chs
CT-HR