BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court on Thursday issued notice to the State Government on a petition against the appointment of Dr Venkataramanaswamy S V as the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities.
Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav passed the order after hearing the petition filed by Praveen Ullagaddi from Belagavi challenging the notification dated October 31, 2026, issued by the government appointing Dr Venkataramanaswamy as commissioner.
Alleging that the appointment in question is an opaque, arbitrary and non-transparent process without disclosure of the constitution of search-cum-selection committee, the petitioner, who is an advocate and president of the State Divyan Para-Valley, Association of Karnataka, contended that the criteria adopted for shortlisting candidates or the basis for selecting Dr Venkataramanaswamy is prima facie illegal as same runs foul of Rule 32 of the Karnataka State Rules for Persons with Disabilities, 2018.
Pursuant to the advertisement dated March 7, 2026, the petitioner submitted his application for the Commissioner post, possessing relevant experience in disability welfare and implementation of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
"However, despite being an eligible applicant, the petitioner was neither informed of the subsequent selection proceedings nor called for participating in the selection process, nor provided any explanation regarding his non-selection, vitiating the entire selection process and appointment,” the petition alleged.
PETITION CHALLENGING APPOINTMENT OF KSPCB CHAIRMAN: NOTICE TO STATE
HC on Thursday issued notice to the State Government on a PIL filed by a Bengaluru-based advocate challenging the appointment of Congress Anekal MLA, B Shivanna, as the chairman of the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB).
A division bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice K S Bharath Kumar also issued notice to the KSPCB member secretary and Shivanna on the petition filed by Sudha Katwa alleging that the nomination of Shivanna as president is in violation of the prescribed procedure, which would be ultra vires.
The petiti-oner stated that the appointment of Shivanna is a violation of Article 14, 21 and 51(A) of the Constitution and the provisions of the Water Act and Rules.
