High Court Karnataka High Court

Channabassappa vs The State Of Karantaka on 20 August, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Channabassappa vs The State Of Karantaka on 20 August, 2009
Author: P.D.Dinakaran(Cj) & V.G.Sabhahit
 

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 20?" DAY OF AUGUST 2009

PRESENT

THE HON'BE_E MR. P.D. DINAKARAN,  H

AND

THE HON'Bi_E MR.3UsTIc"E"v;G.. SADHAAHIT  

wRIT APPEAL No.2880/2.GCr9V_A.(LBEELAI§)v = " 

BETWEEN

CHANNABASSAP-RA I  
AGED ABOUT 62"A-YEARS,   
S/O KONDAPPA    
R/O BANc;ARA:<KAMAj~wGUDDA'  V7
3AGALU,R-TA-LUK, I   
DAVANAGERE D1sT'RIcT.,  

 APPELLANT.

(By srg: TRAJA RA-MA,7ADVI., )

3] OTHER  OF KARANTAKA
L"--BYE-._ITS "SECRETA RY

DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT
 AND PANCHAYATH RA3, M.S.BUIE.DING,
L "BANGALORE

DAVANAGERE ZILLA PANCHAYATH

NH 4, LOKIKERE ROAD,

DAVANAGERE, BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER.

 RESPONDENTS

3

Class and for a direction to the respondent to redo the

entire reservation process strictly in accordance..’wlith_”law

and reserve the post of the Ad hyaksha of Dava-naégjjelre

Panchayat to the General Catego_ry.,,__’by ofu”

mandamus.

2.1 It is averred ..petiti:on_.i§that the
petitioner is a ~ Davanagere
Zilia Panchayatv forythse 2011. The
Karnataka__P»a’ncti*a’vat~vii;aj_€Act, {hereinafter calied the
‘Act’), %%%% of the local seif
Gover{nmentsV’lli–‘ri,the -‘Taluk and Zilla Panchayats.
Sectionlé1.7:_”Z’r’ with the election of the

Adhrgaksha an’d._V_VtJbadViiyaksha of a Zilla Panchayat. The

oviifoftiiécevof the Adhyaksha of a Zilla Panchayat is a

Al”p_e’ri_(‘)d and the term of the member of the

Ziilla— Pa–.nct;~avat is a period of five years from the date of

hiseiection. The reservation of the post of Adhyaksha for

‘p’e’rs*o:ns belonging to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe,

-backward ciass and women is on the basis of rotation in

order to ensure that the members of all categories

av

4
Enciuding Generai Category get equitabie opportunity to be

eiected to the post of Adhyaksha of the Ziiia Panchay’a.ti”‘–VV’

2.2 It is further averred that ,ai4thou.g’h’ p’olE_cy ‘ouf””

rotation with regard to reservation”A~For’Vtha:”‘positsfiofy

Adhyaksha was meant to ensure that they reVpres’ent3§tives’~»i’

beionging to reserved;__categoyri.es»»igetuna f.airr0o,ppoi3tunity to
get eiected to the rlozt,f},fpr””–tyiieiV’Davanagere Zilla
Panchayat, the in virtuai
monopoiizationég iast one decade’
Petitionervhasf:’pVr:3dv_céd’ }showing the reservation
made for._theV’i’po’sti:’ofy”Adiriyaksha in the Davanagere Ziiia
PanchayatflasVvipervirinegrorie ‘A’ to the writ petition.

Acco§rd’ing to t’iie_VVpVetiti:oner, from 2000 to 2008, there has

ybeeh reserva–tion in favour of ali categories except the

Accordingly, for the last decade, the

mernberrs. ofithe Davanagere Zilla Panchayat belonging to

.Vg:’thet__C5er1e.rai Category have not had an opportunity to be

eiecied to the post of Adhyaksha.

O9

5
2.3 It is further averred that the notification issued
by the first respondent dated 04.05.2009, which reserves
the post of Adhyaksha for Backward Class members
violates the spirit of the rotation policy that is envisaged

under Section 177 of the Act and the action on the

the first respondent in not providing any opportiuynity ”

members beionging to the General»–.Céate’gol_tv:’i*iis_ witFi»0i)t’ 0′

authority of law and illegal l’actilon_ToT;_

respondent in reserving the for” the .p’a.ckw:ard “class”

category when the said posts.—-hVad.aireadyfi’bveeniresen/ed

twice in the last four and violative of

the rotation pVo’?ic’y._venvisaged’ under the Act and wherefore
the WritéPetiition”‘was’ filiédseeking for the above referred
reliefs.” 0

Petition was dismissed by the learned

single v;1i}dg”e by order dated 20.07.2009 and being

u”:”.v4.”‘**jaggirievved by the same, the petitioner in W.P.

isfo;14A745/2009 has preferred this appeal.

K/3

6

4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing

for the appellant.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the _4app.4el~l.ant

submitted that the notification issued

respondent reserving the post of.–‘”Adl§ya’ksh’aV

Davanagere Zilla Panchayat, in fa.you_-roof? B”;’:i.’C’l'(.V\V!’al'(‘:lVVV::C’.’l-*:_’.3’S’:.3v”‘”

Aa (woman) is erroneous and.._forV’th_e’ lastiV’V:1’0..yjyears;

post of Adhyaksha had neyie”i?,::_i’;-e_en for the
General Category. Lea.r.r:Te_d 5:_:ou_n.seli._fu.rt~h_er submitted that

the said notification isvylwi–ap_lew to tie_ as the same is

contrary to of -‘Section 177 of the Act and
also contraryto* the rotaétilon policy, which is meant to

achi_eyeathe object ofireservation to persons belonging to

all_cate’g.orie”s–,Vincluding ‘General’ category.

‘v”We have given careful consideration to the

V. co.n_tfenti’ons oft the learned counsel for the appellant and

l ‘s.cru’tinized the materiai on record.

\5

7

7. The material on record would clearly show that

there is no merit in the contention of the learned”rcfoun–s’el

appearing for the Appellant that the post of

never been reserved for the ‘Gen__er.a,l__’4 catet_j’o’ry.’jVi»nlthéerylast V’

10 years i.e., since 2000 till :’2AOGf9r~as

Droduced by the appellant tillfrntself A’ toe’

the writ petition, would cleayrl.yiA’s:howy’that”thesaid post of
Adhyaksha in Davnaglefre ‘4″PajncVhayat, had been
reserved for General the years
2ooo, 2oo_3i.;§nd§j 2fo0s;,: prepared by the
appellavnt_ls”n.ot as the same does not
reveal’-.__about’tl:e.._:i:rese’rvat.ion-‘ made for the year 2004.
Further,’th_e by the first respondent

datejd “G4.O5.2Q.r):f9:V’w0lild clearly show that the same has

been lsSuecl’«..iVn accordance with the provisions of Section

as per the rotation policy, the post of

Adhyal<sha'v'ln the Davanagere Zilla Panchayat has been

"_"'reServed' in favour of Backward Class — Aa (woman).

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant is unable to

-point out as to how the reservation made for the post of

Adhyaksha in Davanagere Zilla Panchayat in favour of

\J>

8
Backward class — Aa (woman) is contrary to the proyisions

of Section 177 of the Act and the rotatio4n”‘~i,’policy.

Therefore, it is clear that there is no meri.t”–lnv.ith:e”*~w.r’itA

petition and the same has been_,righ_tly if

learned single judge and the imzpugfrjeciy

the learned singie Judge does”n.ot’ suffer from a’n_y”ver.’or or* ‘

illegality as to call inte_rfeA’rencegA lnlthis, initra-Court
appeal. The petitioner”flappeigrnt.hlelrein)’,having filed the
writ petition conte_ndEng”‘that; itdhyaksha in the
Davanagere. reserved for
Backwardgvcvfilass iinable to point out as to
how the ‘contrary to the provisions of
Section contrary to the principle of

rotat_§ion,u.whichlyisvmeant for enabling the persons of all

Zcawtegorles,.in::ludEng the ‘General’ category, to become

Aif}\d’hyaAk’shav_..V.ofV~:;th.e Zilla Panchayat. The appellant herein,

withouti~..’ha’v’i”‘ng any basis for impugning the notification

.:issi.aed byfithe first respondent dated 04.65.2069, reserving

._’t’he”p’ost of Adhyaksha in aavanagere Zilla panchayat in

-ifayour of Backward class ~ Aa (woman), filed the writ

petition and the same was dismissed and thereafter, he

\/°*

9
has chosen to file this writ appeai, which is devoid of any
merit. Accordingiy, we hoid that the writ appeai is iia__bie to

be dismissed with costs and pass the foiiowing

The Writ Appeai is dismissedt.tiw’i’tVh_VI¢ost ”

Rs.10,000/— (Rupees Ten

deposited within six weeks Vfirom totiaij/; faiiingii

shaii be taken for recovery of”tf1e cost’ i-n«VV’ac:cord§ance with
iaw.

 ....    "  Justice

Sd/-
IUDGE

  "suma

Index: Yes/No /
Web Host : Yés// No