Case Note & Summary
The case involves two writ petitions: one filed by Nagaraj Y. Talwar (W.P.No.117767/2019) challenging the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal's order dated 04.12.2017 in Application No.5275/2013, and another filed by the Commissioner of Excise and others (W.P.No.103279/2018) challenging the same order. The tribunal had directed the respondents (Excise Department officials) to consider the petitioner Nagaraj's case for appointment as a driver by creating a supernumerary post. Nagaraj had applied for the post of driver in the Excise Department but was not selected. He approached the tribunal seeking relief. The tribunal, after hearing, directed the department to consider his case for appointment by creating a supernumerary post. The department challenged this order, arguing that the tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction. Nagaraj also filed a petition seeking quashing of the order to the extent it only directed consideration and not actual appointment. The High Court, after hearing both sides, dismissed both petitions, holding that the tribunal's order was just and proper and did not warrant interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The court noted that the tribunal had not directed appointment but only consideration, which was within its powers. The court found no error in the tribunal's reasoning and upheld the order.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Judicial Review - Tribunal's Order - Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India - The High Court examined the validity of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal's order directing the Excise Department to consider the petitioner's case for appointment as driver by creating a supernumerary post. The court held that the tribunal's order did not suffer from any error warranting interference under Articles 226 and 227. (Paras 1-5)
B) Service Law - Appointment - Supernumerary Post - The court considered the direction to create a supernumerary post for appointment. The court upheld the tribunal's direction as it was within the tribunal's powers to mould relief. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal erred in directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's case for appointment as driver by creating a supernumerary post.
Final Decision
Both writ petitions are dismissed. The order of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal dated 04.12.2017 in Application No.5275/2013 is upheld.
Law Points
- Administrative Tribunal's power to direct consideration for appointment
- Supernumerary post creation
- Judicial review of tribunal orders
- Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India
Case Details
2020 LawText (KAR) (11) 46
Writ Petition No.117767/2019 (S-KAT) and Writ Petition No.103279/2018
Shri Ravi Hegde for petitioner in W.P.No.117767/2019; Shri V.S. Kalasurmath, HCGP for respondents 1-3 in both petitions; Shri H.M. Dharigond for respondent 4; Shri Sunil S. Desai for respondent 5
Nagaraj S/o.Yellappa Talwar (in W.P.No.117767/2019); The Commissioner, Department of Excise and others (in W.P.No.103279/2018)
The Commissioner, Department of Excise and others (in W.P.No.117767/2019); Nagaraj Y. Talwar (in W.P.No.103279/2018)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal.
Remedy Sought
In W.P.No.117767/2019, petitioner sought quashing of the tribunal order to the extent it directed only consideration and not actual appointment, and sought direction for appointment. In W.P.No.103279/2018, petitioners sought quashing of the tribunal order directing consideration of the candidate's case.
Filing Reason
The tribunal directed the Excise Department to consider the petitioner's case for appointment as driver by creating a supernumerary post, which the department challenged as beyond jurisdiction, and the candidate challenged as insufficient.
Previous Decisions
The Karnataka Administrative Tribunal passed an order on 04.12.2017 in Application No.5275/2013 directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's case for appointment as driver by creating a supernumerary post.
Issues
Whether the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal's order directing consideration of the petitioner's case for appointment by creating a supernumerary post is valid.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the tribunal's order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner Nagaraj argued that the tribunal should have directed actual appointment, not just consideration.
Respondents (Excise Department) argued that the tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by directing creation of a supernumerary post.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court held that the tribunal's order directing consideration of the petitioner's case for appointment by creating a supernumerary post was just and proper and did not suffer from any error warranting interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Judgment Excerpts
The order passed by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference.
Both the writ petitions are dismissed.
Procedural History
The petitioner Nagaraj filed Application No.5275/2013 before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal seeking appointment as driver. The tribunal passed an order on 04.12.2017 directing the respondents to consider his case for appointment by creating a supernumerary post. Aggrieved, both the department and Nagaraj filed separate writ petitions before the High Court of Karnataka, which were heard together and dismissed on 13.11.2020.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
