Karnataka High Court
Sri.Maddeppa S/O Madiwalappa ... vs The Karnataka Power Transmission on 14 March, 2022
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14 T H DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
WRIT PETITION No.101829/2020 (S-RES)
C/W W.P.Nos.101828/2020 AND 148566/2020
IN W.P.NO.101829/2020
BETWEEN:
SRI. DADAKALAND AR,
S/O BABUSAB DOD AWAD,
AGE: 34 YEARS , OCC: COOLIE,
R/O. VAKKUND, T Q: BAILHON GAL,
DIST: BELA GAVI - 590003.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S. L. MATTI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISS ION
CORPORATION LIM ITED,
REPRES ENATED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
CORPORATION OF FICE, KAVERI BHA VAN,
BENGALURU - 560009.
2. THE DIRECTOR,
ADMINISTRATION & HUMAN RESOURCE
CORPORATE OFFI CE,
KAVERI BHAVAN ,
BENGALURU - 560009.
3. THE MANAGING DI RECTOR,
OFFICE & MAINTENANCE,
HUBBALLI ELECTRICILY SUPPLY COM PANY,
2
NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI - 580025.
4. ADYAKSHARU,
KIRIYA MARGAKARMI HUDDEGA L
NEMAKATIYA VRUTTA / ZILLA MATTA DA
PARISHOD HANA S AMITI MATTU
ADHIKSHAKA ENGI NEER,
(VIDYUT) KARYA
MATTU PALANE, V RUTTA,
HESCOM , BELAGA VI- 590001.
5. THE SECRETARY,
KARNATAKA SECONDARY EDUCATI ON
EXAMINATION BOA RD,
MALLESWARAM,
BENGALURU- 560003.
... RES PONDENTS
(BY SRI B. S . KAMATE, ADV OCATE F OR R1-R3)
(SRI. V . S . KALAS URMATH, HCGP FOR R2 & R5)
(NOTICE T O R4 S ERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITI ON IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 A ND
227 OF THE CONS TITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
REJECTION OF THE CANDIDATESHIP OF THE PETITIONER FOR
APPOINTMENT OF THE JUNIOR POW ERMAN VIDE ANNEXURE-K
DATED 26.12.2019 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.4 AND ETC.
IN WP 101828/2020
BETWEEN:
SRI. MADEPPA ,
S/O MADIWALAPPA BENAKATTI,
AGE: 32 YEARS , OCC: COOLIE,
R/O. VAKKUND, T Q: BAILHON GAL,
DIST: BELA GAVI - 590003.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S. L. MATTI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISS ION
CORPORATION LIM ITED,
3
REPRES ENATED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR,
CORPORATION OF FICE,
KAVERI BHAVAN ,
BENGALURU - 560009.
2. THE DIRECTOR,
ADMINISTRATION & HUMAN RESOURCE
CORPORATE OFFI CE, KAVERI BHAVA N,
BENGALURU - 560009.
3. THE MANAGING DI RECTOR,
OFFICE & MAINTENANCE,
HUBBALLI ELECTRICILY SUPPLY COM PANY,
NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI - 580025.
4. ADYAKSHARU,
KIRIYA MARGAKARMI HUDDEGA L
NEMAKATIYA VRUTTA / ZILLA MATTA DA
PARISHOD HANA S AMITI MATTU
ADHIKSHAKA ENGI NEER, (VIDYUT) K ARYA
MATTU PALANE, V RUTTA,
HESCOM , BELAGA VI- 590001.
5. THE SECRETARY,
KARNATAKA SECONDARY EDUCATI ON
EXAMINATION BOA RD,
MALLESWARAM, BENGALURU- 560003.
... RES PONDENTS
(BY SRI B. S . KAMATE, ADV OCATE F OR R1-R3)
(NOTICE T O R4 & R5 S ERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITI ON IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 A ND
227 OF THE CONS TITUTION OF INDI A PRAYING T O QUASH THE
REJECTION OF THE CANDIDATESHIP OF THE PETITIONER FOR
APPOINTMENT OF THE JUNIOR POW ERMAN VIDE ANNEXURE-K
DATED 26.12.2019 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.4 AND ETC.
4
IN WP 148566/2020
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. MADEPPA ,
S/O MADIWALAPPA BENAKATTI,
AGE: 32 YEARS , OCC: COOLIE,
R/O. VAKKUND, T Q: BAILHON GAL,
DIST: BELA GAVI - 590003.
2. SRI. DADAKALAND AR,
S/O BABUSAB DOD AWAD,
AGE: 34 YEARS , OCC: COOLIE,
R/O. VAKKUND, T Q: BAILHON GAL,
DIST: BELA GAVI - 590003.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. S. L. MATTI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE GOV ERNMENT OF KARNAT AKA,
R/BY THE S ECRET ARY,
DEPART OF POWER AND EN ERGY,
KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT SECRETA RIAT
3 R D F LOOR, VIKAS A SOUD HA,
BENGALURU - 560001.
2. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISS ION
CORPORATION LIM ITED,
REPRES ENATED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
CORPORATION OF FICE, KAVERI BHA VAN,
BENGALURU - 560009.
3. THE DIRECTOR,
ADMINISTRATION & HUMAN RESOURCE
CORPORATE OFFI CE, KAVERI BHAVA N,
BENGALURU - 560009.
4. THE MANAGING DI RECTOR,
OFFICE & MAINTENANCE,
HUBBALLI ELECTRICILY SUPPLY COM PANY,
NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI - 580025.
5
5. ADYAKSHARU,
KIRIYA MARGAKARMI HUDDEGA L
NEMAKATIYA VRUTTA / ZILLA MATTA DA
PARISHOD HANA S AMITI MATTU
ADHIKSHAKA ENGI NEER,
(VIDYUT) KARYA
MATTU PALANE, V RUTTA,
HESCOM , BELAGA VI- 590001.
6. THE SECRETARY,
KARNATAKA SECONDARY EDUCATI ON
EXAMINATION BOA RD,
MALLESWARAM,
BENGALURU- 560003.
... RES PONDENTS
(BY SRI B. S . KAMATE, ADV OCATE F OR R2-R5)
(SRI. V . S . KALAS URMATH, HCGP FOR R1 & R6)
THIS WRIT PETITI ON IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 A ND
227 OF THE CONS TITUTION OF INDI A PRAYING TO A WRIT OF
MANDAMUS BY DIRECTING RES PONDENT NO.2 TO INSERT
WORD AS EQUIVA LENT TO EXAMINA TION (QUALIFI CAT ION) IN
THE RECRUITMENT AND PROMOTION REGULATIONS EMPLOYEES
(PROBATI ON), REGULATIONS AND EMPLOYEES (SENIORITY)
(AMEDNEMENT) REGULATIONS 2014AT SL.N O.8 AFT ER THE
WORD 10 T H STA NDARD VIDE ANNEXURE-L AS PER THE
ENDORSEMENT A ND NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE STATE
GOVERNEMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDE ANNEXURE-K AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 30.06.2021, THIS D AY, THE
COURT , PRONOUN CED THE F OLLOWI NG:
6
ORDER
Since subject matter of these writ petitions is selection to post of Junior Lineman in second respondent authority, in pursuance of employment notification dated 25.02.2019, they were clubbed together, heard and are disposed of.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Maddeppa Madivalappa Benakatti filed W.P.No.101828/2020 stating that he had applied for selection to post of Junior Lineman in pursuance of employment notification dated 25.02.2019 (Annexure-F) issued by second respondent. That essential educational qualification for post was pass in SSLC or 10 t h Std. from Karnataka State. The notification provided for reservation for Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes as well as reservation for Physically handicapped persons among others.
3. Petitioner had passed Karnataka Open School Examination (hereinafter referred to as 'KOSE' for short) conducted by Karnataka Secondary Education Examination 7 Board (hereinafter referred to as 'KSEEB' for short). He belonged to 'Kuruba' caste falling under Category II-A. He was also suffering from hearing impairment to the extent of 55%. Therefore, he claimed reservation under Category II-A (Physically handicapped).
4. Likewise, Dadakalandar Babusab Dodawad filed W.P.No.101829/2020, stating that he had also passed KOSE examination, belonged to 'Mohmedan' caste falling under category II-B and was suffering from hearing impairment of 55%. Therefore, he claimed reservation under Category II-B (Physically handicapped).
5. After fixation of cut-off percentage, both petitioners were found to be above cut-off. In short-list of candidates (in ratio of 1:5) published, name of petitioner Maddeppa Benakatti was at Sl.No.1901, while Dadakalandar Dodawad was at Sl.No.1984. They were called for document verification and endurance test. 8
6. During verification, they were found to be ineligible for selection as they had passed KOSE examination, which was not recognized by KPTCL as equivalent to SSLC examination conducted by KSEEB. Endorsements dated 26.12.2019 (Annexure-K) were issued to them by fourth respondent for rejecting their candidature. Reasons stated were:
1. Candidate had passed S.S.L.C. Examination in Open School.
2. Failed to produce physically handicap certificate in required form.
7. Challenging endorsements on the ground that rejection of candidature was contrary to Government Order dated 06.09.2006 (Annexure-L) issued by State Government declaring that 10 t h Std. examination conducted by JSS Karnataka Open University, Mysuru was equivalent to SSLC Examination conducted by KSEEB upon compliance of conditions notified therein. They also contended that State Government had issued G.O. dated 05.03.2018 declaring that certificates and marks cards 9 issued by Karnataka State Open University, prior to withdrawal of recognition to open universities by Universities Grants Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'UGC' for short), to be considered for purposes of further education, appointment and promotion.
8. Writ petitions were opposed by KPTCL by filing statement of objections contending that as per conditions stipulated in employment notification only candidates who had passed SSLC examination or 10 t h Std. examination from educational institutions in Karnataka were eligible to apply. Notification specifically barred candidates who had passed 10 t h Std. (bridge course) or SSLC from Open University or as an external candidate. Therefore, petitioners were ineligible. It was also stated that recruitment was governed by Recruitment Rules and Regulations of Corporation and conditions mentioned in employment notification. As petitioners did not confirm to said stipulations, rejection of their candidature was justified. It was also stated that question of equivalence 10 of educational qualification was in domain of employer and could not be declared by Courts.
9. In said writ petitions, petitioners filed I.A.no.1/2020 seeking for amendment of writ petition for seeking additional prayer to challenge clause-8 of notification dated 25.02.2019, contending that several departments of State and statutory authorities had accepted pass in KOSE as equivalent to SSLC, therefore bar against such candidates in notification was illegal. Copies of employment notifications issued during years 2018, 2019 and 2020 for recruitment in judicial services and notifications issued by NEKRTC, Karnataka State Fire and Emergency Services and Police Department are produced. Copy of Circular dated 27.02.2018 issued by Department of Personal and Administrative Reforms clarifying that Secondary Education Level Course conducted by KSEEB as equivalent to SSLC was also produced.
11
10. Amendment sought for was opposed by KPTCL on the ground that conditions in recruitment notification were in consonance with recruitment Rules and Regulations applicable to post. It was contended that said regulations were amended by notification dated 09.08.2016 deleting the words 'equivalent qualification' in regulation justifying the bar contained in employment notification.
11. Challenging notification dated 31.12.2014 issued by KPTCL amending Karnataka Electricity Board Recruitment and Promotion Regulations, both petitioners joined together and filed W.P.148566/2020.
12. Main ground of challenge to regulations is that it was discriminatory, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 15, 16 and 19(g) of the Constitution of India.
13. Sri. S.L. Matti, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners passed KOSE conducted by KSEEB, which was equivalent to SSLC, as mentioned in 12 the marks-cards issued by KSEEB. Further, they were testing for hearing impairment assessed at 55%. As per their merit, they were notified in short-list and issued with call letters for document verification and endurance tests.
14. Though they were duly qualified, during verification, their candidature was rejected on the ground that their educational qualification did not confirm to notified standards. Learned counsel submitted that KOSE conducted by KSEEB was notified as equivalent by the Government by issuing G.O. dated 06.09.2006. Even in G.O. dated 05.03.2018, it was clarified that degrees and certificates issued by Open Universities prior to withdrawal of recognition granted to them by the UGC in the year 2015 would be considered for purposes of higher education, appointment and promotion. Such being case, regulations framed for recruitment by KPTCL were arbitrarily and discriminatory. It was also submitted that conditions contained in employment notification dated 13 25.02.2019 barring candidates who had passed KOSE was arbitrary and unconstitutional and sought for quashing the same.
15. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Prakash Chand Meena and others Vs. State of Rajasthan and others reported in (2015) 8 SCC 484.
16. On the other hand, Sri. B.S. Kamate, learned counsel for respondent - KPTCL submitted that recruitment to notified post were governed by Karnataka Electricity Board Recruitment and Promotion Regulations, Employees (Probation) Regulations (hereinafter referred to as 'KEB Regulations' for short) and therefore, Government Orders or Karnataka Civil Services (General) Recruitment Rules, 1957 would not apply. Employment notification dated 25.02.2019 clearly mentioned in clause
- 8 that educational qualification prescribed was SSLC or 10 t h Std. from Karnataka State, followed by a note clarifying that no other equivalent qualification would be 14 considered namely candidates who had passed 10 t h Std. (bridge course) or SSLC from Open University or as an external candidate. It was further contended that before filing these writ petitions, petitioners had participated in recruitment process and only after failing to secure employment had approached Court challenging notification on spacious grounds. Amendment sought as well as subsequent writ petition filed challenging amendment to regulation was belated and when recruitment process was almost completed. It was submitted that disrupting recruitment process at this stage, would cause prejudice to large number of applicants who had participated in same. Relying upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sanjay Kumar Manjul Vs. Chairman, UPSC and others reported in (2006) 8 SCC 42, learned counsel submitted that statutory authority was entitled to frame rules laying down terms and conditions of service and also qualifications necessary for particular post. It was submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that jurisdiction of superior courts would not extend to 15 supplant or supplement rules but would be limited to interpreting same and ordinarily jurisdiction under Article 226 or 32 of Constitution of India did not permit issuance of direction to an employer to prescribe a qualification for holding a particular post.
17. Learned counsel also relied upon decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Director (Admin & HR) KPTCL and others Vs. Mohamad Hanisab in W.A. No.100238/2019 and connected matters disposed of on 22.07.2019 wherein Division Bench set aside order of learned Single Judge interfering with recruitment process on the ground that prescription of educational required for posts in statutory authority was within exclusive jurisdiction of authority by referring to Sanjaykumar Manjul's case (supra).
18. Reliance was also placed on decision of learned Single Judge in case of Shrishail Nayikar and another Vs. KPTCL and another in W.P.101730-731/2016 and connected matters disposed of on 31.01.2017 wherein 16 rejection of candidature of applicants who had passed 10 t h Std. from KOSE was upheld referring to decision in Sanjay Kumar Manjul's case (supra). Reference was also made to decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maharshtra Public Service Commission through its Secretary Vs. Sandeep Shriram Warade and others reported in (2019) 6 SCC 362 wherein in paragraph no.10 it was held as follows:
"10. The esse ntial qualificatio ns fo r appo intment to a post are fo r the employer to decide . The emplo yer may prescribe additional or desirable qualifications , including any grant of prefe rence . I t is the emplo yer who is best suite d to decide the re quirements a candidate must possess according to the needs of the employe r and the nature o f work. T he court cannot lay down the conditio ns of eligibility, much less can it delve into the issue with regard to desirable qualifications be ing at par with the essential eligibility by an interpre tive re writing of the adve rtisement. Questions of equivalence will also fall outside the domain of judicial revie w. If the language of the advertisement and the rules are clear, the Court canno t sit in judgment over the same. If there is an ambiguity in the 17 adve rtisement o r it is contrary to any rules or law the matte r has to go back to the appointing authority afte r appropriate o rde rs , to proceed in accordance with law. I n no case can the Court, in the garb of j udicial re view, sit in the chair o f the appo inting authority to de cide what is best for the emplo yer and inte rpret the co nditio ns o f the adve rtisement co ntrary to the plain language of the same."
19. Relying upon Division Bench decision in case of South Western Railway through CPO and another Vs. Fakruddin Baba Sahib and others in W.P.No.67479/2011 disposed of on 18.02.2015 to contend that petitioners having participated in selection process knowing fully well about prescribed educational qualification could not after being unsuccessful, challenge same. On above grounds, learned counsel sought for dismissal of writ petitions.
20. Undisputed facts are that petitioners have passed 10 t h Std. in KOSE equivalent to SSLC examination conducted by KSEEB. The educational qualification 18 prescribed for selection to post of Junior Lineman in impugned notification dated 25.02.2019 are SSLC or 10 t h Std. from Karnataka State, followed by note stating that other equivalent qualification namely 10 t h Std. (bridge course) or SSLC from Open University or as an external candidate would not be considered.
21. The fact that petitioners belong to category II-A and II-B is not in dispute. The fact that petitioners were within zone of consideration as their names in short-list of candidate is also not in dispute. Their candidature is rejected at stage of verification on two reasons namely that their educational qualification i.e., pass in KOSE was not recognised educational qualification and failure to produce physically handicap certificate in prescribed form.
22. The Petitioners are not only challenging endorsements issued to them rejecting their candidature, they are also seeking to challenge, clause no.8 of the notification containing bar against Open School candidates from applying. Petitioners are also seeking for directions 19 for amending the KEB regulations by seeking for insertion of eligibility of equivalent educational qualification for posts of junior lineman.
23. It is not in dispute that several departments of State Government as well as other authorities have accepted equivalence of KOSE to SSLC.
24. But before consideration of validity of bar against candidates passing KOSE from applying for selection to posts in KPTCL, it is first required to be considered whether petitioners are entitled to challenge the notification and regulations.
25. It is settled principle of Service Law that prescription of education qualification was within exclusive domain of employer. The employer would be best suited to decide requirements considering nature of work.
26. The specific prayer sought in I.A.No.1/2020 in W.P.Nos.101828/2020 and 101829/2020 is for quashing relevant portion of clause - 8 of notification dated 20 25.02.2019 (Annexure-F) to the extent "equivalent educational qualification would not be considered".
27. In W.P.No.148566/2020, prayer sought is for issuance of a direction to respondent no.2 to insert words "equivalent educational qualification" in KEB Recruitment and Promotion Regulations Employees (Probation) Regulations and Employees (Seniority) (Amendment) Regulations, 2014 at Sl.No.8 after the words "10 t h Std.", in Annexure-L - Notification.
28. In Sanjay Kumar Manjul's case (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that jurisdiction of superior Courts would not extend to supplant or supplement rules but limited to interpreting same and ordinarily jurisdiction under Articles 226 or 32 of Constitution of India would not permit issuance of direction to employer to prescribe a qualification for holding a particular post.
21
29. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sandeep Shriram Warade's case (supra) has further held that questions of equivalence would fall outside domain of judicial review.
30. Admittedly, recognition of Open Universities has been cancelled by UGC due to rampant irregularities. Taking note of above, KPTCL amended KEB Regulations barring candidates from Open Universities to participate in selection process. There is prima-facie justification for the Regulations. Moreover, it is settled law that the constitutional validity of any statute, rules or regulations is to be presumed until declaration of invalidity. [Refer Mohamad Hanif Qureshi Vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1958 SC 731; A.C. Aggarwal Vs. Mst. Ramkali reported in AIR 1968 SC 1; People's Union for Civil Liberties Vs. Union of India reported in (2004) 2 SCC 476].
31. In the case on hand, there is no proper challenge to regulations, despite contentions urged about 22 their invalidity as violative of Articles 14, 15, 16 and 19 of the Constitution of India. Though it was submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that this Court had ample powers to mould the relief, Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Bihar and another Vs. Dr. Radha Krishna Jha and others reported in (2002) 6 SCC 308 has held that in absence of specific prayer, general direction cannot be issued. Further in State of A.P. Vs. K. Jayaraman, reported in 1974 (2) SCC 738, it is held that High Court cannot decide constitutional validity of an act or rule suo- motu. In paragraph no.3 its observations are as follows:
"3. ... ... The petitione rs had only prayed fo r the quashing o f the GO No. 929 of N ovember 29, 1971 of the Health and Municipal Department fixing the gradation of the pe titioners vis-a-vis other emplo yees. They had no t prayed for any declaration of invalidity of the AT A Rules. The question of its validity wo uld have affected a number of perso ns who we re no t befo re the Court."
Therefore, the need for specific prayers in service matters cannot be over emphasized.
23
32. But the basic issue that arises in these writ petitions is whether petitioners are entitled to challenge selection process after having participated in it after finding themselves unsuccessful.
33. Admittedly, petitioners herein participated in selection process knowing fully well about the conditions and prescription for selection, without demure. Only after being unsuccessful and suffering rejection of their candidature, they filed writ petition initially challenging validity of endorsement. Only after filing of statement of objections, justifying endorsement in terms of conditions stipulated in employment notification, petitioners have sought amendment of writ petition to include challenge to conditions in notification.
34. It is noted that Employment notification in question was issued on 25.02.2019. Impugned endorsements were issued on 26.12.2019. Writ petitions W.P.No.101828/2020 and 101829/2020 were filed on 24 02.01.2020. Statement of objections was filed on 04.08.2020 after serving copy on petitioners on 29.07.2020. I.A.No.1/2020 for amendment of writ petition is filed on 03.08.2020. Thereafter, W.P.No.148566/2020 is filed on 15.10.2020, when selection process was at conclusion stage. It was stated that employment notification in question (for recruitment to 1425 posts of Junior Lineman) was subscribed to by a large number of applicants and selection process is in conclusion stage.
35. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has in several decisions held that challenge to recruitment process by candidates who had participated in it would be barred. [Refer - University of Cochin By its Registrar Vs. N.S. Kanjoonjamma and others reported in (1997) 4 SCC
426. D. Saroja Kumari Vs. R. Helen Thilakom and others reported in (2017) 9 SCC 478.]
36. Under above-mentioned circumstances, I am of considered view that this is not a fit case for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction as sought for at the behest of 25 candidates, who had participated in selection process and therefore estopped from challenging its validity and also on the ground that challenge is defective if not belated.
Hence W.P.Nos.101828 and 101829 of 2020 are dismissed along with I.A.No.1/2020 filed therein. W.P.No.148566/2020 is also dismissed.
No order as to costs.
SD/-
JUDGE BV K