The State of Karnataka v. Rajesh Nanchi

NC:(2025:KHC:54131-DB( WP(No.(38147(of(2025( C/W(WP(No.(38293(of(2025( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( A INATHEAHIGHACOURTAOFAKARNATAKAAATABENGALURUA

THDATEDATHISATHEA18 ADAYAOFADECEMBER,A2025A

PRESENTA

THEAHON'BLEAMR.AJUSTICEABAMASHYAMAPRASADA

ANDAA

THEAHON'BLEAMR.AJUSTICEAT.M.NADAFA

WRITAPETITIONANO.A38147AOFA2025A(S-KSAT)A C/WA

WRITAPETITIONANO.A38293AOFA2025A(S-KSAT)A

A

INAWPANo.A38147/2025A A

BETWEEN:A AA -THE-STATE-OF-KARNATAKA-Digitally Signedtiby REP.-BY-SRI-T.-HEERALAL-I-F-S-REKHA0R CHIEF-CONSERVATOR-OF-FORESTS-AND-Locationti: High0Courttiof RECRUITMENT-AUTHORITY-Karnataka CHAMARAJANGARA-CIRCLE--CHAMARAJANAGARA---571313.--…PETITIONER-(BY-SRI.REUBEN-JACOB.,-AAG-FOR--------SRI.-V.-SHIVAREDDY.,-AGA)-A A A NC:(2025:KHC:54131-DB( WP(No.(38147(of(2025( C/W(WP(No.(38293(of(2025( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( A AND:A A -RAJESH-NANCHI-S/O-RAJU-AGE-ABOUT--23-YEARS-R/AT-MASTHIGUDI-PUNAR--VASATHI-KENDRA,-ANNUURU-POST,-MYSORE-DISTRICT---571114-MYSURU.--…RESPONDENT---THIS-WP-IS-FILED-UNDER-ARTICLES-226-AND-227-OF-THE-CONSTITUION-OF-INDIA-PRAYING-TO-a)-QUASH-THE-ENTIRE-PROCEEDINGS-IN-CONTEMPT-APPLICATION-C.T.A.-NO.3/2025-ARISING-OUT-OF-A.NOS.-1705-1707/2024-PENDING-BEFORE-THE-HONBLE-KARNATAKA-STATE-ADMINISTRATIVE-TRIBUNAL,-AT-ANNEXURE-A,-INCLUDING-THE-IMPUGNED-ORDERS-DATED-24/10/2025,-05/12/2025-AS-BEING-WITHOUT-JURISDICTION,-ARBITRARY,-VIOLATIVE-OF-NATURAL-JUSTICE-AND-CONTRARY-TO-SETTLED-CONTEMPT-JURISPRUDENCE;-b)-DECLARE-THAT-THE-PETITIONER-HAS-FULLY-AND-BONAFIDE-COMPLIED-WITH-THE-ORDER-DATED-27/09/2024-IN-A.NOS.-1705-1707/2024-AND-THAT-NO-CASE-OF-WILFUL-OR-DELIBERATE-DISOBEDIENCE-IS-MADE-OUT-AGAINST-THE-PETITIONER;-c)-ISSUE-A-WRIT-OF-CERTIORARI-OR-ANY-OTHER-APPROPRIATE-WRIT,-ORDER-OR-DIRECTION-SETTING-ASIDE-ALL-NC:(2025:KHC:54131-DB( WP(No.(38147(of(2025( C/W(WP(No.(38293(of(2025( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( CONSEQUENTIAL-PROCEEDINGS-ARISING-OUT-OF-CONTEMPT-APPLICATION-BEARING-C.T.A.-NO.3/2025-IN-A.NOS.-1705-1707/2024-AT-ANNEXURE-A-PENDING-BEFORE-THE-HONBLE-KARNATAKA-STATE-ADMINISTRATIVE-TRIBUNAL,-BENGALURU,-INCLUDING-THE-FRAMING-OF-CHARGES,-DIRECTION-FOR-PERSONAL-APPEARANCE-AND-ORDERING-FOR-FIXING-OF-DATE-OF-TRIAL.---INAWPANO.A38293/2025A -BETWEEN:A -

1.-THE-STATE-OF-KARNATAKA-REPRESENTED-BY--THE-PRINCIPAL-SECRETARY-TO-GOVT.,--DEPT.OF-FOREST,-ECOLOGY-AND--ENVIRONMENT,--M.S.BUILDING,-BENGALURU-01.--

2.-THE-PRINCIPAL-CHIEF--CONSERVATOR-OF-FOREST,-THARANYA-BHAVAN,-18 --CROSS,--MALLESHWARAM,--BENGALURU-560-003.--

3.-THE-CHIEF-CONSERVATOR-OF-FOREST,--AND-RECRUITMENT-AUTHORITY,-CHAMARAJANAGAR-CIRCLE,--CHAMARAJANAGAR-571-313.--...PETITIONERS-(BY-SRI.-REUBEN-JACOB.,-AAG-FOR------SRI.-V.-SHIVAREDDY.,-AGA)-NC:(2025:KHC:54131-DB( WP(No.(38147(of(2025( C/W(WP(No.(38293(of(2025( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( AND:A -

1.-SRI.MADA,-S/O-CHELUVAIAH,--AGED-ABOUT-32-YEARS,--R/AT-VADERAHALLL,--MUTHIGECHIKKATHALAALU,--H.D.KOTE,-TALUK,--MYSURU-DISTRICT-571-121.--

2.-SRI.-MANJAPPA-Y.B.,-S/O-RAJU,-AGED-ABOUT-29-YEARS,-AGED-ABUT-28-YEARS,--R/AT-YAHWANTHAPURA,--SARAGURU-HOBLI,--H.D.KOTE-TALUK,--MYSURU-DISTRICT-571-127.--

3.-SRI.-RAJESHA-NANCHI,-S/O.-RAJU,--AGED-ABOUT-24-YEARS,--R/AT-MASTHIGUDI-PUNAR--VASATHI-KENDRA,--ANNURU-POST,--MYSORE-DISTRICT-571-114.--

4.-SRI.SURESH,-AGED-ABOUT-MAJOR,--C/O.-OFFICE-OF--THE-CONSERVATOR-OF-FOREST,-AND-RECRUITMENT-AUTHORITY,--CHAMARAJANAGAR-CIRCLE,--CHAMARAJANAGAR-571-101.--

5.-SRI.-KUMARA,-AGED-ABOUT-MAJOR--C/O-OFFICE-OF-THE-CONSERVATOR-OF--NC:(2025:KHC:54131-DB( WP(No.(38147(of(2025( C/W(WP(No.(38293(of(2025( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( FOREST-AND-RECRUITMENT-AUTHORITY,-CHAMARAJANAGAR-CIRCLE,--CHAMARAJANAGAR-571-101.--

6.-SRI.MAHESHA,-AGED-ABOUT-MAJOR-C/O-OFFICE-OF-THE-CONSERVATOR--OF-FOREST-AND-RECRUITMENT-AUTHORITY,-CHAMARAJANAGAR-CIRCLE,--CHAMARAJANAGAR-571-101.--...RESPONDENTS-----------------THIS-WP-IS-FILED-UNDER-ARTICLES-226-AND-227-OF-THE-CONSTITUION-OF-INDIA-PRAYING-TO-(a)-SET-ASIDE-ORDER-DATED-27.09.2024,-PASSED-IN-A.-No.-1705-1707/2024-BY-THE-HONBLE-KARNATAKA-STATE-ADMINISTRATIVE-TRIBUNAL,-AT-ANNEXURE-A,-IN-SO-FAR-AS-PARAGRAPH--15;-(ii)-IS-CONCLUDED.-------THESE-PETITIONS,-COMING-ON-FOR-PRELIMINARY-HEARING,-THIS-DAY,-ORDER-WAS-MADE-THEREIN-AS-UNDER:--CORAM:-HON'BLE-MR.-JUSTICE-B-M-SHYAM-PRASAD-and--HON'BLE-MR.-JUSTICE-T.M.NADAF--

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD)

The State of Karnataka, represented by the concerned officers from the Department of Forest and Ecology and Environment, has filed a writ petition in W.P.No.38293/2025 calling in question the order dated

27.09.2024 in Application Nos.1705-1707/2024 on the file of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru [for short, 'the Tribunal']. The next writ petition in W.P.No.38147/2023, though the cause title of the petition reads is by the State of Karnataka, is on behalf of the Chief Conservator of Forest and Recruitment Authority, Chamarajanagar Circle, Chamarajanagar [the Chief Conservator of Forest] calling in question the Tribunal's orders dated

24.10.2025 and 05.12.2025 in Contempt proceedings in CTA No.3/2023.

¶2The Tribunal, by order dated

07.11.2025 in CTA No.3/2023, has issued a bailable warrant for the Chief Conservator of Forest's presence, and by impugned order dated

05.12.2025, the Tribunal, recalling the order dated

07.11.2025, has framed charges and scheduled the contempt application for trial on 02.01.2026. The material circumstances leading to these impugned orders are as follows.

[a] The Conservative of Forest and Recruitment Authority, Chamarajanagar Circle, Chamarajanagar has issued notification dated 16.09.2023 [Annexure-R7] to fill up 32 posts of Forest Watchers [Group-D posts] within the Chamarajanagar Circle.

[b] The Complainant1 has offered his candidature, and he, being aggrieved by his non-inclusion, has joined the others calling

1 The respondent in W.P.No.38147/2023, and he is referred to accordingly in this Order.

in question the final selection list dated

16.03.20242.

[c] The complainant has sought for reservation as a person from a Scheduled Tribe [the Forest Tribe category], and the authorities have contested this application on the ground that the applicant being a resident of Mysuru District, could not have applied for selection under that category.

[d] The Tribunal has disposed of this applications on 27.09.20243 directing the authorities to verify documents submitted by respondent and, if eligible under the relevant notification, to consider his case for appointment. The Tribunal's directions read as under:

2 The application with the Tribunal is in No. 1705-1707/2024. 3 The Tribunal's order in this application is impugned in W.P.No.38293/2025.

"The Respondent No.3 is directed to re-verify documents submitted by applicant No.3 Sri Rajesha Nanchi for him being a resident from H.D. Kote Taluk and if eligible as per relevant Notification being a part of the 5 Tiger Reserve in Chamarajanagar Circle to consider his case for appointment".

¶3The authorities did not call in question this direction, and in fact acting in compliance with such directions, they have examined the documents filed by the complainant issuing the Endorsement dated 30.10.2024. It is essentially stated in this Endorsement [for which the selection notification] that it would include Chamarajanagar District and reservation under the aforesaid category would only be to those who live in this District and that the complainant, because he is a resident of Mysuru District, cannot be considered for appointment under reservation as a Forest Watcher within Chamarajanagar Circle.

¶4The complainant has filed the subject contempt application with the Tribunal; at the first instance, the Litigation Conducting Officer from the office of Assistant Conservative Forest, Chamarajanagar Circle, Chamarajanagar, has filed a compliance affidavit reiterating the terms of the Endorsement; and upon the Tribunal issuing a warrant, the Chief Conservator of Forest's has filed a Counter Affidavit on 21.11.2025. It is on perusal of this affidavit that the Tribunal has found it proper to frame charges against the officer on 05.12.2025 based on the reasoning in the order dated 24.10.2025 where initial opinion is recorded. The Tribunal has recorded thus as the reasons4 for its prima facie opinion: Thus, as shown above, Accused/ Respondent has himself clearly held that some portion of H.D. Kote Taluk, which is in Mysore District falls under Nagarahole Forest Zone.

4 This Extract is not verbatim but is almost the same subject to some minor change.

The continuation of the said observation shows that the Bandipura and Nagarahole Forest Zones are considered for the present vacancy. However, even after admitting in Annexure-R3 that the complainant is a resident of H.D. Kote Taluk and the said Taluk falls within the Nagarahole Forest Zone, Accused/ Respondent gave a different reasoning to reject the complainant's application stating that Chamarajanagar Circle falls within Chamarajanagar District and as such, only the residents of Chamarajanagar District can be considered. In the enthusiasm to give reasons, it appears that the Accused / Respondent has forgotten what is mentioned in the order passed in A. Nos. 1705 to 1707/2024 and forgot the fact that even this Tribunal had noticed that applicant before it [complainant in present contempt application] was a resident of H.D. Kote Taluk falling within Mysore District, however, some portion of H.D. Kote Taluk was coming under Bandipura Forest Zone.

Even according to Annexure-R3, H.D. Kote Taluk comes under Nagarahole Forest Zone. Thus, revenue administration District was not required to be keep in the forefront while considering Wildlife Division or Tiger Reserve.

Since, the Accused / Respondent has ignored and mechanically reproduced its previous order in A.Nos. 1705 to 1707/2024 with some substitution of words and addition of few words, we are of the view that there is no compliance of the order from the Accused / Respondent side. Hence, matter is required to be proceeded further by framing charge.

¶5Sri Reuben Jacob, a learned Additional Advocate General, submits that Chief Conservator of Forest, who has assumed office after the Tribunal's order and the first compliance affidavit, has verified documents once again and filed his affidavit bringing on record stating as below, and the learned Additional Advocate General submits that the complainant cannot be accommodated even if he is a resident of H.D. Kote Taluk [Mysore District]. [a] The selection notification is for 32 vacant posts of Forest Watchers in four reserves within Chamarajanagar Circle including five posts in Bandipura Tiger Reserve Region.

[b] The respondent could have applied for five notified posts for Bandipura Tiger Reserve Region because a portion of Bandipura Tiger Reserve Region includes a certain area within H.D. Kote Taluk. [c] The complainant, though entitled to claim reservation, had to participate only under the General Category because no post is reserved for the local candidate from a Scheduled Tribe. [d] The Complainant has scored much lower than the cut of marks of the general merit candidate.

¶6On State's grievance with Tribunal's direction in its order dated 27.09.20245, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal should examine these circumstances to decide whether such direction must be reviewed, and therefore, the State/the Chief Conservator of Forest must apply. The writ petition in W.P.No.38293/2025 must be disposed of with liberty in this regard. Further this

5 This Order is called in question in W.P.No. 38293/2025

Court opines that if the Tribunal must consider on whether its directions as aforesaid must prevail on an application filed by the State/ the Chief Conservator of Forest, the continuation of contempt proceedings would not be a just course. The contempt proceedings, if an application is filed, must stand deferred subject to the outcome in the application. In the light of the afore, the following: ORDER [i] The writ petition in W.P.No.38293/2025 stands disposed of with liberty to the State to file application with Tribunal for clarification/review of its order dated

27.09.2024 observing that all questions on merits of the circumstances now brought on record are left open to be considered by the Tribunal after due notice to the complainant.

[ii] The writ petition in W.P.No.38147/2025 is disposed of requesting the Tribunal to defer the

contempt proceedings scheduled to be held on

02.01.2026 in CTA No.3/2023 if the details of the application for clarification/review is placed on record on the next date of hearing until the outcome of such application.

[iii] In these circumstances, personal appearance of the officer in the contempt proceedings in CTA No.3/2025 is exempted from the next date of hearing before the Tribunal.

Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

Sd/- (T.M. NADAF) JUDGE SA ct:sr