Karnataka High Court
Mr Ahmed Pasha vs State Of Karnataka on 23 April, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.32933 OF 2012 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
MR. AHMED PASHA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
S/O MR. KHADER NABI
PRESENTLY R/AT
C/O KHADER GRAMSI (1237)
RAICHUR FIRE STATION, NEAR GUNJ
HYDERABAD ROAD, RAICHUR-584 101.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. ANU BHARADWAJ, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI B. VACHAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDHA
VIDHANA VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY
2. M/S KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED
SHAKTHI BHAVAN, NO.82
RACECOURSE ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR
2
3. ASLAM PAGAD
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
MAJOR
C/O B V BHOOMARADDI COLLEGE OF
ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY
VIDYANAGAR, HUBLI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V.SHIVA REDDY, AGA FOR R1;
SRI KIRAN KUMAR V. SAMBRANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R3 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER PASSED BY R2 VIDE ANNX-P VIDE LETTER DATED
14.08.2012 AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 22.04.2024, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the respondent No.2, wherein the petitioner's Cumulative Grade Point Average (CGPA) was re-determined at 6.73, contrary to the CGPA of 6.86 awarded by the Engineering College. Consequently, the petitioner's candidature for the post of Assistant Engineer 3 was rejected and the respondent No.3 was appointed in petitioner's place.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the records.
3. Petitioner completed the course of Mechanical Engineering with Cumulative Grade Point Average (CGPA) of 6.86, as certified by the Engineering College. The grading system was adopted by the Engineering College and the CGPA calculation was done based on the grades obtained by the petitioner in both Section A and Section B of the course.
4. Upon meticulous examination of the submissions and perusal of the records presented by the parties, this Court finds merit in the petitioner's contentions. It is observed that the petitioner successfully completed Mechanical Engineering course with a commendable CGPA 4 of 6.86, as certified by the Engineering College. The calculation of CGPA and the grading system employed therein fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the said Engineering College. This fact is corroborated by the notification issued by the Institute of Engineering, emphasizing the College's authority in determining the grading standards.
5. In contrast, respondent No.2 purported to recalibrate the petitioner's CGPA using a formula adopted by Vishwa Technology University. However, it is pertinent to note that such recalibration encroaches upon the prerogative of the Engineering College and exceeds the jurisdiction of the respondent No.2. The Court opines that the authority to determine CGPA lies squarely with the institution where the course was pursued, and any external recalibration of the same is unwarranted. 5
6. The crux of the matter lies in the competency of the respondent No.2 to recalibrate the petitioner's CGPA. It is a well-established principle that the grading system and CGPA calculation are within the purview of the educational institution awarding the degree. The Engineering College, through its notification, clearly asserts its authority in this regard. Thus, any external recalibration by the respondent No.2 is deemed unwarranted and beyond its jurisdiction.
7. The present writ petition brings to light a crucial discrepancy in the calculation of the petitioner's Cumulative Grade Point Average (CGPA) by the respondent No.2. It is contended that the respondent No.2, in their calculation, erroneously assigned 75 marks under grade H, whereas the Institute of Engineering, in accordance with revised examination rules, considers 100 as the maximum marks in grade H. This unilateral action by the respondent No.2 has led to the rejection of the petitioner's candidature for the post of Assistant Engineer, despite eligibility. 6
8. Upon careful consideration of the submissions and examination of the relevant provisions, this Court finds merit in the Petitioner's contentions. The Institute of Engineering, through its revised examination rules, mandates that the maximum marks in grade H be considered as 100 for the calculation of percentage of marks. Therefore, any deviation from this standard, as observed in the respondent No.2's calculation, is erroneous and without authority.
9. The Court emphasizes that the calculation of CGPA is not a matter of discretion but is bound by the rules and guidelines set forth by the educational institution. The unilateral adoption of a faulty formula by the respondent No.2 has unjustly impacted the petitioner's eligibility for the position of Assistant Engineer. Such actions, which contravene established norms and guidelines, warrant interference by this Court to rectify the injustice caused to the petitioner.
7
10. Moreover, the petitioner's eligibility for the position of Assistant Engineer under the initial notification is undisputed. The erroneous re-calculation of their CGPA unjustly results in the rejection of their candidature, while respondent No.3 is appointed in petitioner's place. To rectify this injustice and uphold principles of equity, this Court deems it necessary to grant the petitioner seniority notionally and reinstate his eligibility for the position.
11. The repercussions of setting aside the impugned order are significant, particularly for respondent No.3, who was appointed in petitioner's place. Should the order be overturned, respondent No.3 would face the imminent threat of job displacement. Notably, respondent No.3 has not contested the matter. It has been ascertained that subsequent to the events in question, the petitioner has been successfully selected in a subsequent recruitment notification. In light of this development, it becomes imperative to weigh the competing interests at play and 8 devise a solution that ensures fairness and equity for all parties involved. Therefore, to mitigate potential harm to respondent No.3 while upholding the petitioner's legitimate rights, the petitioner shall be granted notional seniority retroactively from the date of respondent No.3's appointment, effectively positioning the petitioner above respondent No.3 in terms of seniority.
12. In the light of the foregoing analysis, this Court deems it fit to set aside the respondent No.2's decision to recalculate the petitioner's CGPA and reinstate the original CGPA of 6.86 awarded by the Engineering College. The petitioner is deemed eligible for appointment under the initial notification, and petitioner's seniority is notionally recognized, placing him above the respondent No.3. Furthermore, the appointment of respondent No.3 is made subject to the outcome of this writ petition, ensuring fairness and protecting the interests of all parties involved. 9
13. For the reasons stated supra, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed in part;
(ii) Respondent No.2 is hereby directed to grant petitioner notional seniority retroactively from the date of respondent No.3's appointment and shall place petitioner above respondent No.3 in terms of seniority.
(iii) Furthermore, it is also clarified that respondent No.3's employment shall be protected in view of notional seniority extended to the petitioner;
(iv) Pending I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration and stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE CA