Karnataka High Court
Dr B H Prasanna Kumara vs The Secretary on 6 February, 2017
Author: Raghvendra S.Chauhan
Bench: Raghvendra S. Chauhan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN
Writ Petition No.5224/2017 (S-RES)
Between :
Dr. B. H. Prasanna Kumara
S/o. Horakerappa,
Aged about 36 years,
R/at: Kersarakoppa,
Lakkavalli,
Tarikere Taluk,
Chikkamangalur District. ...Petitioner
(By Sri Narendra S., Advocate)
And :
1. The Secretary
Coffee Board,
No.1, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore-560001.
2. The Registrar
University of Agricultural Science,
Dharwad, Krishinagar,
Dharwad-580005. ...Respondents
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to direct the respondent No.1 to issue
No-Objection Certificate as per the representation dated 31.01.2017
as per Annexure-A, forthwith to enable the petitioner to attend the
interview called by the respondent No.2 University.
This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing this day,
the Court made the following :
2
ORDER
The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers :
" Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, directing the first respondent to issue No Objection Certificate as per the representation dated 31.1.2017 as per Annexure-A, forthwith to enable the petitioner to attend the interview called by the 2nd respondent University."
And the petitioner has prayed for the following interim relief from this Court :
" To issue an ad interim order directing the 2nd respondent to permit the petitioner herein to attend the interview called by the said University on 07.02.2017 at 9.00 AM at Dharwad without insisting for production of No Objection Certificate, pending disposal of the above writ petition."
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner is a holder of Masters Degree in Agronomy. According to the petitioner, on 13.5.2016, the respondent No.2, the University of Agricultural Science, Dharwad, had issued an advertisement, 3 inviting applications for the post of Professor of Agronomy in the prescribed form. Since the petitioner was a holder of Master's Degree in the said subject, since he was hopeful that he would be selected for the said post, he submitted his application before the respondent No.2.
3. Subsequently, the petitioner was appointed on 1.6.2016 on the post of SMS/(Agronomy)/Agronomist RCRS, by the Secretary, Coffee Board, respondent No.1.
4. On 27.1.2017, the respondent No.2, issued an interview call letter to the petitioner to appear before the Interview Board on 7.2.2017, at 9.00 a.m. Having received an interview call letter, on 31.1.2017, the petitioner submitted an application before the respondent No.1 for issuance of "No Objection Certificate" (NOC). However, according to the petitioner, till 31.1.2017, the respondent No.1 has not issued the necessary NOC. Therefore, the main prayer and the interim made by the petitioner before this Court.
5. Mr. Narendra S., the learned counsel for the petitioner, has relied on the case of Dr.Ramesh Y. M. 4 v. Administrative Officer, University of Agricultural Science, Bangalore, (Writ Petition No.21992/2012, decided by this Court on 29.6.2012), and in the case of Mr.Manjunata Bhanuvally v. University of Agricultural Science, Dhrwad, (Writ Petition No.45158/2012, decided by this Court on 7.11.2012), in order to support his plea that this Court should direct the respondent No.2 to permit the petitioner to appear for the interview scheduled to be held on 7.2.2017.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and considered the case law submitted at the Bar.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner is highly misplaced in relying on the two orders passed by this Court mentioned hereinabove. For, a bare perusal of both the orders, clearly reveals that in both the orders, this Court had merely directed the respondents therein to immediately issue a NOC in favour of the petitioners therein. This Court did not direct that the petitioners therein should be permitted to appear before the Interview Board despite the non-availability 5 of NOC with them. Therefore, the reliance on the aforementioned cases is unjustified.
8. Even otherwise, considering the facts mentioned above, it is amply clear that while submitting his application in compliance of the advertisement dated 30.5.2016, the petitioner was well aware of the fact that, in case he were to be employed after the submission of the application, at the time of interview, he would be required to have a NOC from his employer. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed on 1.6.2016. Yet from 1.6.2016, till 31.1.2017, the petitioner did not endeavor to seek a NOC from the respondent No.1. It is only at the pen-ultimate moment, that is on 31.1.2017, the petitioner filed his application seeking for NOC. Therefore, the petitioner is unable to explain the inordinate delay of six months in seeking a NOC from the employer.
9. Most importantly, this Court is not in a position on 6th of February 2017, and that too, at 5.15 p.m., to direct the respondent to issue a NOC in favour of the petitioner. This Court would equally be unjustified in directing the respondent 6 No.2 to permit the petitioner to appear in the interview scheduled to be held on 7th of February 2017 in the absence of NOC. If the requirement of law is that NOC is required, this Court cannot violate the said requirement.
Therefore, for the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in the present writ petition. It is, hereby, dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE *bk/-