IN THE HIGH CGUTIT 0? KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD %
DATED THIS THE 25″” my OF FEBRUARY, zocé;
PRESENT
THE Hc>m3LE MR. IusTI::E4Ia4.K.Pé:m;”IT%¢ajf I”
THE HC)N’BLE MR.3u£3IT:_E Aéfixii :3 N
w.P. NQ.34§_35/e’4(s-KAT§ & wI§%I <FLHQs.c§:.w§4ukx53;z1;@[0915-KAT)
cgw W.;§'*. Ho.4o4ssgo4;':€§§;.I;IIIS;Q;__.;34533ge4§s–KAI)
IIIII
I HA:IKsIA£%IV’3A;A JAM KHAN DI,
S/O’JA’BIRSASjM;’ JAMKHANDI,
AGEDR8 ywo QUARTERS,
HAMSABHAVI — 581 3.19.
” ‘ IfI–HITzIEI<ERm=a'TALux, HAVERI 9IsTaIcT.
' '.2. .AHImoGouoA, s/0 RAMANAGOGDA
I ii __ "J'EE\!ANGC)UDAR, AGE: 33 YEARS,
I 'act: NIL, R/O ANTARAVALI,
"TQ: RANEBENRUR, DIST: HAVERI.
3.HANUMANTHGOUDA, S/O
NINGANAGOUDA NAGANAGOUDAR @
MUDIGOUDAR, AGE: 34 YEARS,
OCC: NIL, R,/O GOLSDAR ONI,
SAVANUR, DIST: HAVERI.
4. NAGAPPA,
s/0 VENKAREDDY HANUMAR§DDEA?i,.
AGE: 33 YEARS, R/O: ITAGI,
TQ:RANE’BENNUR, DIST: HAVER1; * %
AGE: 33 YEARS, occ: NIL.-V’ _
R/0: GANGA3ANm:s;r;A PART-1.; –
TQ: RANEBENNUR, . « 5 %
DIST: HAVERI; “if–_ “~._. .:PE'{7iTIONERS
5. KUBERAPPA, s/o KEERAPPA éujha,
(BY SR1 L;t;;xa«:,~w *?%;.VMAmTA¢;A.zuI 8:
sax A.s~4%s%33g’cg}%A.( J
‘VMAN3;A§?A1f, $m1=1GER,
sic vS§jiAN§tZ§5R».SI.MPIGER,
A<;ED"3e« YEA_R.S,'~. "
: VA VILLA-(SE: Ar_<:m£ALs_z,
POST: ARALESHWAR,
. .. «HANAGAE TAILU K,
Ai¥iAf\fEE1I4_DIST¥{ICT. :i3ETITIOhiER
(iBY.SRE LAXMA§£ T. MANTAGANI, Aw.)
4
GRDER
Aii these 7 petitions are flied assaiiing of
the common order dated 28.G7.Q4″”‘passe.d ,!«ejAI’Appi’i*o’atit2rns’1’.
r~:o.194s – 1955/oz, 7o12/oz and 19§’7fi9’_¢4/U2’V$t)”f3F itifreiates
to petitioners cencerned, seekino’e’§eropri’ate it
2. The only grievance mV_adfe..9ut_vby t’r:~e_¥vear_ned counse!
appearing for the petition~er’s._¥e petitions, at the
outset, is that theeevpetiti’o’ne§e,’*h«;.y¢’ for the post of
Armed Poitce ._Cons%Ez-:bi_:e”in”thevv~–State Poiice Force pursuant to the
Netincatieniisseuedt by tth’ef§en:petent authority dated 23.o3.o2
and they have beeepseieeted in the physicai test and thereafter,
the interview and their names have been
net’ifiet!__V;rnV”tSe..’v_Ae’fiiiionai / Waiting iist. But, unforturzateiy, for
V it no fauit ofv*..the:§e petitioners, they have not been taken on duty
tehe__4_soIe¢ ground that their names have been netified as
§gie.£teep”¢andidates omiy in the Aciditionaz / waiting list. In View
it :o’f””not taking them on duty though selected, they we:’e
t4″”siV>”‘c”onstrained to fiie an appiicatierz before the ‘fribunai as referred
above. Those applications ¥ed by the petitioners aiong with
*___W_”__w___,_,¢_,,”,,_,_..,e…»…
6
Apex Court and this Court in cateria ofjedgments, has-rejected
their prayer, hoiding that a candidate in the waiting
order of merit wiii have a right to claim
apiiiointed if one or other selected ca-n’did~ate Vjioinb. T.
once the seiected candidates join and’«yno–._\iecancy. ariee”sf’di1′:e’to
resignation etc. or for any other reason viiitvhin–th_”e peri’o’d”the iist
z-W-»- operatefiuncier the rules oriwitihgin “reasonabie period where
no specific period is provided _the’n..cano_i_diate.froi*n the waiting iist
has no right to ‘future vacancy which
may ariseun_iess’i’t’i?ie._:seibe’ci;ion_ was heid bad and they do not
have any yested to the iimited extent, indicated
_above,_;or when”th:e’V’appointing authority acts arbitrarily and
from the waiting iist by picking and choosing
for” extraiAn’eoes__ reasons. This aspect of the matter has been
r_ightiy”‘i—-ooii.ei:i-into and considered by the Tribunal foiiowing the
iaie down by the Apex Court in host of juogments and by
4’_’assign’ine cogent and vaiie reasons, it has refused the prayer
° ‘:sou~ght by the petitioners in the applications nieo by them. we
eedo not firici any good or justigabie ground to interfere with the
….o.l~»»~»~»«-»-v—W*'””
/