Karnataka High Court
Srinivas vs State Of Karnataka on 2 November, 2010
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, B.Manohar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF ~
PRESENT: 2 " AL
THE HON'BLE MR.
AND _ AD . _
THE HONBLE MR.
WRIT PET1T:QNs.ND;4f5:39}2oo7(s§KAT)
16352/2007, "2'3O48_/2C5-O3;.23_()49/2003 (5 mxam)
1. SRINIVAS; E
s/o,.vENKATA.KmsHNAPPA.KM
C}':?'C.'F/£8, D _
AGED: 48 ..YEARs';""
T :'LASHKAR PQLICE STATION,
; 2. '1"u.uRAC§HA{/ENDRA.
AGED 49 YEARS.
. QMYSORE CITY.
A S/O.{ATE THAMMAIAH,
D c:12c.973.
_ §LAS}-IKAR POLICE STATION,
W
3. D.PRM{ASH.
S/OLATE DEVAIAH,
CI-"C.50.
AGED 48 YEARS,
DEVARAJA POLICE STATION,
MY SORE CITY.
4. HANUMANTHAPPA BHEEMAPPA kk
AGED 48 YEARS,
MURUGODU POLICE STATION, ._
SAUNDATTITALUK, .
BELGAUM. '
5. MARUTHL
AGED__.51"'Y_EA*E?.S, _
S/O' PANDI;JRAIs:IG BHINGE.
HEAD c;O~NSIT'ABLE;"'~AIII ~ O I
NO.1546; "
YEMAKANA. M:\G:'.\_I)I__FOLICE STATION
HIJKKERI TALUK, =
BELGAUM DISTRICT,
" V' - _ B'ELC}A,U'1\/{.
6'; V'
A.OI2:I: ASPYEARS,
S/ORAMAPPA RAMAGERI,
_ OCC".*-POLICE CONSTABLE,
1878,
" M-URUGODU POLICE STATION,
SAUDATTI TALUK,
BELGAUM DISTRICT.
A/M
BELGAUM.
7. SHIVALINOAPPA,
AGED 51 YEARS,
S/OSOMAPPA VADATTI,
OCC: HEAD CONSTABLE,
NO555,
EXTENSION POLICE S'FATION,""' .
GADAG EETAGERI, A
GADAG.
(BY SRLSHPEESHAIL TURKANI, ADVOCATE} V V
AND: 'V --
1. STATE OP KARNATAKA BY__I'_l"~S_,*V.
ADDIT1ONA_L CHIEF"S ECR.ETARY
/PRINC)IPAL'SEACRE'"fARY, A
HOME AND TRA1'\ISP_QRT DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOU.DHA,.
BA.NGALORE--~360 'O01 .
2. DIRECTOR GENERAL AND
"E.I\§SP-EC'-}jOR GENERAL OP POLICE,
A f ..KARNATA"KA STATE,
" _;POLjI'<:_E~ QUARTERS.
' »NRU.PA_T'j1-iUNGA ROAD.
BAN"GALORE--56O 002.
Alf
. _ u
NAGARAJAR' A
MARfij_;?PA.A
RRAKASH ROTI
4
ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR
GENERAL OF POLICE,
RECRUITMENT AND TRAINING,
AND CHAIRMAN PSI'S {SPECIAL}
RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE.
CORPS OF DETECTIVES
HEAD QUARTERS,
CARLTON HOUSE.
PALACE ROAD
BANGALORE -- 560 001.
psrs (SPECIAL) RECRUITMENT'
BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY,_AND_j '1' ' I
DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL: OF
NO.2,
NRURATHUNGA ROAD~,.__ "
BANGALORE -560 002. _
ROLL.N0
1476
1 174
1 524
2001
gym
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
FUfiflU
LAKSHNHKANTHA£iN
JAGfiJHSHAEIS
VENKATESH MURTHY.A.\(»:
Gmm&mN£ V :_
muumJUNwn¥uuA¢1sHffifi§:K
}fl3NAPRA}LNVf,
SATYANAFMfi%mflQS"flflfiY§§t7
S}H\nASEi&N}LAEQ\1i;! -"'"
VGm¥KAfE$Pf;:"f}7"17Vv
JA§muabLufi§A3§1Q
ALAfiLHL%RJ1§$A<flV8*
_ymLNtAKUwuu{B""
~7MOH%MM8fiBUDAN
J7JfiSNUR1UUSHNAPRA
=JEmMUNAPRA
'"§yqa¥bMmAPRAaa
~_;ALYAJxAngN
"sPnyuwRAJ
5/
1181
1948 ~8»F1*_
1203fi*'
M_ 1§%é878'--'
?18i8i@71_ffz'*8
'Vfl_13é3~'7
11;;17:s8114
7:217
1617
1297
1677
1132
1139
2034
1294
1838
2335
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39_
°L4Q1
41
7
GANC%CGCWVDA1£B
2Edfl3CK{ALIBAdG
BELAGAL1 SIDDALINGANA
CH3"HlA
NUU1ADERUkC}
SfUU¥Kfi&UCEUURLK
VIRUPAXI.B.MATHIKO15P}1::
FU&flflVNAJ3 L b
N.M.ANANDA K:fir1~.1A_{§ '
S@$#wKiAR$qLfiTfl5,5_,
7
sA§AsH:V;\_:A$: 1 1: 7 V
gf 7MATHAF'AT1v1NIE§UPADAYYA
" C'fL£'f&1\:1I:37SE?l;V:Ij\21UR'1'HY.S
K/:«:.1~\I'7:fr<;1:§\1'1*1tx RAMANAIAH
GAMSIEAPPA
EANIL SHAMARAO KULKARNI
SAEHMMRRLS
W
1
1373
1222 "5"7\71
'»f<1313
1961
1224
1376
1077
2041
1365
1513
1401
1379
1512
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57,
se
x"g5161M
1"=u16é
GOPALA KRISHNAC
SHUWAEWVANHELK
JAYANNA
'hNhXKUh®%R(lS
VTTRAHALEQELAGI
NwuusEnDAPpA5maETT§m§R_
JAGADEEsHJL¢?%%[
AmmmIUNAfi$Ln£j_7:
Hu$sAfi{§gyfiGLE§H@@g§
FUflflES}LLJK11'5a4V
;}LMvULQMwffiAPPA
'»"FEHJD£QflhLKNAAUfiR
'."a@P§;BA$Auui
<;:2NAfiuuaAJU
CHjPALA
_NA£flfl%&LAJA
ABDULSALEEMI}
W
21655' 1
1358
1644JWH5 _,
' 2134541,
1»t<1972
:1*51i3i1
1152
2140
1369
1119
2024
2032
1435
1675
1565
1131
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
PANCHAKSHARAUUJ
TUM3flM§NA1iANA&mAPRA
KARHLAL
VENKATESH.N.R
HARISH CHANDRA
KRESI-INAPPA
D.N.RAMESH
NAGEGowDA.N__§:
MADAPPA 2
ASLAM
BANU 1 ~ 1
_ .SEE'11A "R_A:1 M..}I.K 'V
'GoWIi3A.'B
1 '
YIEZ-I;111'1_xVn(1%16\:IAH .A
N;A12ASIMHAIAH.C
f.u5NAGARAJU.K.C
S1DDARAJU.B.M
/9
1170
1337
1674
1692
1721
1172
1160
1487
1629
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
951000
1":\9?.f
9
IJNCUUA11
'H$KEhMflT{PCWVER.
P&WMNDAJKUNUU?
IJ¥KNLKN}KU1mAR
BASAPBRBHEENMEPA
EU&HMNTEfi
HANUMANTHAPPA.Hf
NACMU%%Jl{
MANJAIAI-1.1-3.KV
RAVI NAIR; 8
_ .AMAI§"N}\RAYA1%AIY
'G0VINDARAM '8JU'.R
" 8I{E3E'18K11'£8{I:1_iKUMAR.C.M
G'A{'}A LINGIAH
=NAGr:sH.s
CPfl%VDFUfl¥¥LK
5%
888'18261:@m
1255
2209
ms
8153600
.:'11.9_00
1138
1976
1091
1192
1070
1243
1576
1124
1839
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
-0 1
SMT. VIJAYA LAXM I
PUT1¥UA}1Kl)
KAREflTHNUUA&1A
LAKSHfiflKMdU¥fl%%A3TY f
KJ{RAAH}§UNflUR
NUUWLAPEAJLE
BJKBASADMH
GURU SIDDAPPA 21 1
MAHADE'«'APPA.NAIKAR I
JAGzu*\:1$a'»ATii3égV :0
LAYAPPA~'I>mf;11,% .. 1 2
sI:jDA1,AH'* % 1'
V,1S}i'&RANA_l?VFA HIPPARAGI
0 S 1VA:SWAMY
NATE
RAJA1\%NA.1)
AGANAPAT}~1I.E
RAG1UHh%
1/
2128
1686
2224
1753
2311
1402
1771
1903
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127'
"
HANUMAPA RAYAPPA
NADAGADDI
THURIMALIIAH.B.S
LAKSHMI NARAYANA.M.D
DIVAKARA.C.N
CHANDRA SEKARAM
AGASIMANI YALLAPPA _
DODDAYELLAPPA V 4'
PAMPANNA GOWDA
NARASIMHA MUR'f_HY' 2
SViDbAPPA.}§j._'jN_2' .. 2 2'
LINGAPEAV _ 2
* -1 25'a°V1SHWANATH;'G.S
' HANDA
HOSAMANI
G<§v1NDAARAJU.H
'SUDHARSHANM
DEVARAJ . G
A"
1697
1259
2262
1962
1244
2238
1764
1906
1950
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
"*~9»149
PRA$HiAK£&{K
TARA$H¥N%AJ{
RmAHfi&HJBALIhflJLLA
SHAH{ABDULKADER
MEERGHOUSE
NflDDHWAEflU3EMflVASAB €gw._
GCHJK$MNGI
ABDUL AZEEZK
SYFULLAJX
RANC¥flM¥H£A£1fi~ f
rnM§UwHm¢fifiAQu{3tR9"W9
ANJANEYA7}9=j*'
_SEsHApRLkmV:"5
1jaN%NJAPRA.1H» %%%%%
."flm@A$iG0wDAKJ
gRm$Ed0wDAwu:
UMEsHxr
£HHDNDAPPA(H£MVDRAPPA
LAKKANAVAR
A"
1898
1892
2102
2296
152fi9'11V§f*~"
1352
1791
1185
1166
1628
1969
1251
2026
I51 DEVADAS RAVI KUMAR I346
152 VARADRAJUM 1843
I53 NAGALINOAIAH.A.N 1257f
154 5ALAC1IANDRECOwDA.C.PT , K 1 V I
(ByT.Tharesh, Advocate for RA35. I '_ "
Sri.M.V.Revana Siddaiah, Advoeate f0"r~.RIi--O, R15, R23.
R56, 12.74 and 11.139,
Sri.V.Rajendra Prasad_ "Shet¢ty,V_VAdy0C2:Ite for R91, R115
and R134,
Sri.J.Nagaraj, Advocate f0'r1R. --
Sri.Vijaya Kumar Associates, Ad\fOCate"f0r R96 5: R. 11 1.
Sri.T.Naraya11_'a Sm:/amy, AdV0C'a.t_e"fOr~~wvR.5, R.'/, R9 R11,
11.14 and
R25, 29, 33, 3_5,;37.""'46, 47-50, 54, 55, 64-68, 69.
70, 757.78,._8O¢84';i::;.92,"-93., 94"~9?;"'101«104, 117-124, 126,
127, 129, 122.128, 143241.35, 138, 140, 143, 146, 147.
I48, 150, 153, 1
R61, R.9Q,"R.14-9 e11fe»_Cii«s311*1issed as not pressed vide Order
dated: 03.02.2009P,_ V '
R. 52 :15' served'-bu't '1In--'represented)
«THIS FILED PRAYING TO QUASH THE
J1IDI\1IEN'I;DA:rED 31.01.2007 PASSED BY THE HONBLE
C KAT"'---BAN(}ALORE IN APPLICATION NO.2290 TO 2303/02
1' 11050 To 11061 /2002 VIDI: ANNEXUREG AND
'7J'f1I,LO'§V THE APPLICATION ON THE FILE OF THE KAT BY
QE§I'A$HING OF PROVISIONAL SELECT LIST NO.8
T RECT/200-2001 DT.NIL VIDE ANNEX-D AND DIRECT
A"
THE RESPONDENTS TO START THE FRESH PROCESS
OF SELECTION FROM THE STAGE OF COMP4IJI35ITI'ONOF WRITTEN TEST AND CALL THE cANO%:fOAT'_ES INTERVIEW IN THE RATIO OF GROUP/COMMUNITY/CASTE. 1-ACCORDINQAS -[RULE :
3&2{$3I)UOF' THE RULES VIDE AN1'~37E)i§U'E~Z3E----}'..,.. . ' I T PETITION NO.16i352 OF 2.007[S~KAT'3 E. BETVVEEN
1. SRLVIVEKANANDA PADIYAR A AGED 43 YEARS; ~ ; T_ S /O V.GANAPA"I'HI '-PADIYAR--=._ " S_ WORKTNOAS POLTOE OONS'TAE.1,E, AT LAS;~1'K>@\R POLICE°VSTAfI'ION.....§ UDU R: STATION.
2 SP1 BALAKRI'S_H'NA' AGED 44 VS/O L"A'1'E;SAN'£f{APPA PUJAR .. OCC: POLICE CONSTABLE, ..piC'NO'607.RT TTTTT A MAN"i.PAL_ POLICE STATION.
A -UDUPE DLSTRIOT, S R/O';'T{~"{ISHUL HOUSE, OFP:_L1?OLICE QUARTERS.
' SHAKTI NAGAR.
MANIPAL. PETITIONERS ('BY_.uSRI.SHREESHAlL TURKANI & K.M.NATARAJ, ADVS) Aw"
I5 STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF' SECRETARY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME AND TRANSPORT DEPARTMEN'1"§;'~~-«I4.' I' VIDHANA SOUDHA, BAN GALORE--56O O01 .
DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF KARNATAKA STATE, _ POLICE HEAD QUARTERS.
NO.2, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE~56,-O 002.,-«--« _ "
ADDITIONAL DIREC'TOR7GENERAL OF POLICE RECRUITMENT AND TRAINING ANID"CI~IAIRMAN PSI's(SPECIAL)RECRIIITMENT COMMITTEE. CORPS 3.OFj;1DETE'CI:VES QUARTERS, _ PAl.AC.E'Rtf;)AD,' I , EANCAI.j;OR'E:~'56C._ooI. "
VPSI*S'ISPECIALIAIRECRUITMENT COMMITTEE BY'~ITS MEMBER SECRETARY AND DEPUTY ':1N.SPECTOR'GENERAL OF' POLICE.
- .. IV ?~1.Q;«.'.2,'.N'RUPATHUNGA ROAD, 'EANC:ALQ_RE--560 002.
' POLICE SUB INSPECTOR HEBBUR POLICE STATION.
A 'I ._TALUK: TUMKUR, I * . _.7I'UE\/IKUR DISTRI%ll:./ 6 K.T.TARAI\§ATI-IA POLICE SUB--INSPECTOR, KUNDAPUR POLICE STATION (CRIME) UDUPI DISTRICT. I 7 C.P.BALACHANI:>RA POLICE SOB INSPECTOR, KADRI POLICE STATION, ' MANGALORE EAST, = _ ~ MANGALORE DISTRICT. EESPONDIENTSIVT, (BY SRLDHARMASHREE ASSTS FORV'I?..V_ R2, SMTREVATHY AEINATH NAEAOE, PiC.GP}' THIS WP. FILIEID. QUASH THE JUDGMENT DT. 14.8.~2II07 THE I-ION'BLE KAT BANGAI;OP;E'SO._ FIAISAS 12975 AND 112977 IN THE C:OPII}P%~.I %"'*OS.gf:g.32975-12978/2002 VIDE ALLOW THE APPLICATION ON THE FILE OF' THE QUASHING OF PROVISIONAL SELECT LI_S_*I'_I)T,_N:IL' ANNEXC AND ETC, I IN \F§{RI'"{' PETITION.NO.2304S OF 2003[S~KAT) I{;I&'.iPIAI;APPA.
S/O_I';ATE H.K.NARAPPA, ' AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, CIVIL POLICE CONSTABLE No.88, AA DAVANAGERE--557 002.
RESIDING AT G-~4~, POLICE QUARTERS. P.J.EXTENSION.
/Iv E7 DAVANAGERE--577 002. PETITIONER (BY SRI.SHREESHAIL TURKANI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA M A BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECREIIrARYig'. "
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, * ~ ~ = HOME AND TRANSPORT :2, ' VIDHANA SOUDHA _ S BANGALORE560 0O'1..__'_ DIRECTOR GENERAL INSPECTOR GENERAIE OF POLICE KARNATAKA POLICE HEAD QUARTERS , _ No.2, NRU--PATHAUN'C3~A ROAD 1 , BANGALORE-560 O02". V. ADDLIAI:iIREC:fI'OR».OENIERAL OF POLICE, RECRLIITNIE,N"IfTRAINING AND CHAIRMAN, PSIS {SPL}._RECRU__I'l'M'ENT COMMITTEE, CORRS OF'DIf?,EC'IfORATIVES HEAD QUARTERS , CARLTON HOUSE"
~ PALACE ROAD, BA=NGALORE~56O 001.
{SP:Lj,. RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE A BY IT-SE/IEMBER SECRETARY AND DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE READ QUARTERSI, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS /9"
18
NO.2, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE560 002. RESPONDEN'FS (BY SM'I'.REVATHY ADINATH NARDE, HCGP}I....._xI' I ' . THIS WP FILED PRAYING %*1'IIA-'TIE' JUDGMENT BY THE HON*I3L,E""CEAT i_BAN"OIA_LOI2;E "
APPLICATION NO.1o293 AND 16295/'2oO'I VIDE ANNE AND DIRErjT«._I_VTI~IE.. RESI»OI41DfSNTS TO» CONDUCT SELECTION AFRESH ~ ';wITIIOUT RESERVATION ON MER_IT. - '4é':' IN WRIT PETI?IjIONS.NOI=2304-9 OF 2003(S--KAT}
1. I:?ANCI?I:';YYA3~MALl;AYYA HIREMATH S-/ O MAI.LAfY.YA IIIREMATH AGED AI3OI3T '4I4"YF;ARS, CIVILPOLICE 'CONSTABLE NO.So3, 'SHIRAHA"FI"I' POLICE STATION JEQADAG DISTREC'l'-582 I20.
._ RESIDING AT DABALI STREET " OIIIAEAIIAI BUILDING, .SI~III2,AIIAI*TI, GADAC=DIST»582 120. PETITIONER QIBY SRI.SI~IREESHAIL TURKANI, ADVOCATE} A"
W
1. THE STATE OE KARNATAKA BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY "
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, , HOME AND TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT__ " I ~ 5; VIDHANA SOUDHA 3' BANGALORE-560 001. M
2 DIRECTOR GENERAL M\TD=__INS.PEiCTOR C-EN' OF POLICE, KARNATAKA ST..-ATE " = "
POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, NQ2 NRUPATHUNGA ROAD"-._ ' BANGALORE~5S0 002.
3 ADDL D1RECTOR'I}EIgIEPALMOI?'POLICE RECRUITMENT AND' TRAINING. AND CHAIRMAN PSIS (SPL)._RECRU.ITMENT_COMMITTEE CORPS OE B.IRE:CTO"; TIVES QUARTERS C01.
4 PSIS ._[SPL) R';E-.CR.Ui--TMENT COMMITTEE BY ITS MEMBER'SE'CRETARY AND DEPUTY INSPECTOR _GENERAL. OF POLECE, HEAD QUARTERSI " _; PO.LICE"'H._EAD QUARTERS.
~ ANRUPATHUNGA ROAD a 1' BANGALORE~562 002. RESPONDENTS ADINATH NARDE, HCGP] THIS WP FILED PRAYING TO QUASH THE ""5ir'ff«.L ;IuDOM.ENT BY THE HON'BLE KAT, BANGALORE IN % T"'SOAPPI;ICATION NO.I0293 AND 10295/2001 DT. 27.3.2003 AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS, TO CONDUCT £4"
SELECTION AFRESH, WFIHOUT RESERVATION ON MERIT.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE HAVING_..___BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED AND COMING ooNi't-ma PRONOUNCEMENT or JUDGMENT --.'.__ff1)AY_, BMANOHAR J .. DELIVERED THE FoLLQW,m'C';;': d T' ORDE§_fsHyM.
The petitioners are the'-._ ap13li§tea13tds~.' :"befo:i'eA i'i'I1the . Karnataka Administrative Trib.1ina1't(v'KAT' Q beirigi' aggrieved by the orders date_d_fl3i_--'1;2()t)?';«i_i.§t--§3i2007 and KAT, filed these writ petitions before this !Hor1'Vble.' i i J
2. ;"I'he mmmon question of law and facts involved in \X;ifit.:Vd'petitions, norrselection for the post of Police has been questioned before the KAT. Hefiee .a1l~tiie matters are clubbed together and disposed efsby this common judgment.
5/
3. The applicants are working as Poiice Constables, I-lead Constables in various Police Stations. They had approached the KAT challenging their non--selVeelt_i'on for the post of Sub--Inspeetor of Police. The contended that the 411% respondent iss'ued:*_..1j{;f_ificatilon. dated 28-1 1-2000 inviting applications ifor»tecftlliltihfintetfor 0 the post of 150 Police Sub--'3'n'speeto'rs blunder'ltl<ie«-viifi--seri/iced' candidates as per '_ Karnat_aka_ 'State Service [Recruitment of Police {Special} Rules, 2000 as a one*ti_nieiihieasiiirefu.";i'h.e..:eligibility condition prescribed 'inithe §;faid_iiotifica_tion reads as under:
lA,<.5,e«and No person shall be eligible to appear-for thcvconipetitive examination under these 0, rules prescribevnzl d{a}_"unl.ess_ he/she has worked for a period of not less « "fl_'1~Elfir;;.V'l.O yeas, as an in--service candidate as on 11?'! Day of April, 2000;
(b). if he/ she does not possess a degree or equivalent qualification as on the above date;
/5"
IQ IQ (C) Where notwithstanding anything contained in sub-Ru1e (2) of Rule 6 of the Karna_ta:kal'~.Civil Service (General Recruitment} he/she has attained the ageploef [including person belongi1'ig.ji't'lo '.ScihedLii--edbj'.
Caste, Scheduled Tribe oth'er:l" iigzeigfiiéagfd classes on the llthlid-afy oflA.pril 20--:io.;%*.et Further, procedure fo:r"'~se1elotiion:l:«of,':in.»serxrieefcandidates also mentionedppin the The candidate must qualify thereafter Written examinationpp candidate, who had qualifiedminll test, will be called for the test consisting of two papers.
There isno mi»nirht1m'marks prescribed in the written test. lllfiasled thernerit in the Written test, the candidate shall tlorappear before the Selection Committee for an li'11te1f\:/iewl carrying 20 marks in the ratio of 1:3 in each .t,.:gro1_;p, eommunity, caste. As per the said notification, 150 .l were notified and 75 posts were reserved for general T " Wnierit, 23 posts for SC, 5 posts for ST, 6 posts for category- A"
I, 22 posts for category--II--A, 6 posts for category__¢_li--B, 6 posts for category -III~A and 7 posts for cate«g'o:rye:li'IjB. The selection authority shall prepare the final a selected candidates on the basis" of the marks secured in the test referre»(igto--'.inll Riii'eT7~ and into consideration the force' to the reservation of posts vf€;.'.'(." Castcgécheduied Tribe and other Bac}{i2l%ar_d order of merit. Further it ihaifevrage percentage of the total or more candidates are equalfthé inlllvresllpect of such candidates shall of their age. The Selection Comrnitteell"s_hall.V"prepare the list in the order of merit .,4.indicati--n.g the rnarksllobtained by each of the candidates ll4th.e:l_jcan.didat.es eligible for appointment. The said,4__llist.~sha'il'the forwarded to the appointing authority.
4. Pdrstiant to the said notification, the petitioners l..ff»::ri1adep application for the posts of Sub~Inspector of AM' Police as In-service candidates. They have appeared for the physical efficiency test and thereafter wriVtte'n7.test. However, they are not selected for the said provisional list has been announced on petitioners being aggrieved by :non--seelecti-on'Viforfiliie post of Police Sub--Inspector,-..__filed2an app'li'cati.on .beio1s.§» the KAT challenging the provisioiial dated 28--11-200l on variods«--._groAulnd2s' of application. The KAT by its order dlateysivreferred to above was pleasedytouapplications holding that there in the provisional select list and also there is no proceydural iI"regu1arity preparing the provisional select ' ' «list "a;nc1:,,,d.isI'nissed the applications. before the KAT being aggrieved by the 'Vvorders by the KAT, preferred these writ petitions. ..uSri.Sreeshaila Turkani, learned counsel appearing % for the petitioners contended that the orders passed by the /M KAT is contrary to law and the procedure adopted for selection of the Sub--Enspector of the Police is also to the law laid by the Hon'b1e Supreme SAWHNEY v/s UNION or INDIA'reporte"d 993'i'so' :
477. The reservation has been 50%. Further, there cannotybe any.
the in--service candidates. 'I'iie 'b'eir1g"VEin service, they should have reservation under any One'offthe:;A_'cate§4orie§?fgrftheviireasons that they come under Creamy layer within the aioefldrawing the salary in the range in respect of the Police Constabletfl"R3:.4'5.'75A4 in respect of Head Constabie
-- in respect of Asst. Sub--inspector. }ire.c'edure followed is contrary to law.
7. as per the notification dated 28--11-2000, 1:3' ratio in each group/community/caste shall be for the interview. However, oniy 40 candidates in A"
general merit category, 58 candidates in SC. 38 candidates in ST, 33 candidates in categoryf:'l';., 130 candidates in category -- II A, 32 candidates :v»¥~..«II B, 63 candidates in Category-IIIA and category--III--B, were called for the ' contrary to the Rules 3[2)(c).'of__.theAsaid
8. T he petitioners furtherlcohtexideti have not challenged the rule fix8--l l~2000, however, they have adopted in selecting ,4 Hence, the reasoh;i_ng_ -' that once the petitioners participelitelé in, proceedings they cannot chalijeehge thelllselect list runs contrary to the contention of Even though, they have not challenged select list, if the procedure adopted is cont1'afy,, the Rules or Notification, still they can it '[_'~cVhla1--1enge the selection process. /5"
9. Further, selection to the post of the Constables, Head Constables or the Assistant Sub--lnspectors by reservation of the posts, there cannot be (v)V.I'l"'i':r'r.F}'10E'{3 reservation of the Vacancies for the selectio_n""'of Police Sub--Inspectors. The intendment isrto select the meritorious candidates. ._-'Inf? the -.in'stanft___ case, overlooking the intendment<of~_the rules or reservation of seats was made_l:t'o.:th.e Slfiand other backward classes. Sir1ce,_Atliosleivclandidiates are under the Creamy Layer policy to have been considered category.
10. Fnt1rt'h.erl, seats reserved for the General Merif.CategoF_\t, on'lyAGeAn.eral Merit candidates numbering it -2.25"}-sho"uldi* havelbelehv called for the interview. Contraiy to in the top of the list had been called. Inthat v_o11l_yjl»1O general merit candidates were selected and R"""--._V:"'other 2 seats have been filled up from the reserved categories. That apart, they have been selected under the /5"' 28 reserved category amounting to reservation, which is more than 85% and is contrary to the law laid by the H0n'b1e Supreme Court. The finding of the KAT is that the selection has been made solely in accordance:"Withhthe notification and reservation policy of the"Cst_ate" Government is also not correct.
11. Further finding of the participated in the selection-process'; having n~ot"'seiected; 0 they cannot challenge, the pro'eess 'selection.-is contrary to the Rules. On the'sei."ahoi:*e:' the petitioners have sought 'the order passed by the KAT and to quash the seiect Government Advocate appearing for the contended that in order to select the in- servuice candidates for the post of Police Sub-Inspector, the Government by its notification dated 21-8-2000 brought into force, the Karnataka State Police Service /3"
29
(Recruitment of Subwinspector) {Special} Rules 2000 with an object and purpose of recruiting 150 police Sub~ Inspector from inwservice candidates. The last. for filing application was fixed as 15-12-2000. have made applications and appeared.*£'o1= efficiency test after qualifying in._ thesame,-.app'eared:;for 0 the written examinations a'nd.._Vgot 1ninimum'1ma_rl;s3. For vivawvoce examination as per_ll"R,ule»_ 3[2.)l(c}._bas7ed on the merits in the Written Vexami1*iaitio'Ii;" the candidates are required to appear b'efo1'e": Committee for viVa~v:oce"lVexaininafitionL,:F'or t_ilii'ng up 75 seats in general merit category,i1itervi.eW.'notice has been issued to 225 canciic1ates"i'nV_:the ".'meritliist to appear for the Viva-voce test it.,i:E;-VtlliSzgratiop. In the 'selection of general Merit candidates. ST and other backward category can appear; it In the process of selecting 75 general merit ll""-__l0'"categorytandidates, only 40 candidates belonging to the
-general merit categories have been selected and other ....vacancies have been filled up by other meritorious A"
30
candidates. The selection has been made in accordance with the Rules framed in 2000 and notificatioiinisisued thereunder. As per the instructions in the it is made known to the candidates«.that selectionlf' authority shall prepare thepfinaillseileclt listV'.,jyf';ix on the basis of the percentage:oi7marl<s test referred to in Rule consideration the order in force of posts for SC and ST The State Govemmefitl it clear that the Creamy" apply to SC/ST and category--II V classes and the candidates belonging £6 e[aiegory.::';A, II--B, IH--A. llI--B are entitled to "seek 'reservation in the manner specified in the new I e-con1prehe.n'siVe,Vkcrearny Layer policy to the in--service canc1idates,'.:'~~'lHence, the selection has been made in V.""'*..lvl"aceQrdarice with law and sought for dismissal of writ . 'petition. /g,'/ 31
13. Sri.'i'.Narayanaswamy, Advocate appearing for some of the selected candidates contended that so-n"1e:.f"pQf',.the grounds raised in these writ petitions have been a before the KAT and they cannot-iniake j before this Hon'b1e Court. VI*"urtAhVer",-._iVthe ip'etitio11e'i%s'~have secured less mark in the writteiiptest. are not selected for the saidzpost. that the petitioners have not the provisional list. Hence that some of the candidates' the posts of Police Sub»Irispec'to:;%f_v a judgment reported in 2o0%--AiRscc:s'i]§o.0' case of UNION OF INDIA AND ornpns 'V/Sx:.'VJ1\?~Oi3I:~iV"~i:{UMAR AND OTHERS. Further. «he'-hasgeoritendeid'that the selection has been made as per Order dated 28"1June 1995. While filling merit category, the meritorious candidates V"-have tohe selected. Hence, there is no merit in any of the V."t.contre-'ntions raised in the writ petitions and sought for it ..._disrnissa} of the writ petitions. /V
14. We have Carefully gone through the argtiments addressed by the learned Counsel for the and perused the order passed by the KAT.
15. It is not in dispute that pv,r'si1ant"t.Q t.h'eV'Vnietifieatien if' dated 28-11-2000, the petitionersbeirig eligihle, candidates had made applications "forthsveiectinnmfer the post of Sub~InspeCtc31~,,._A_0f Vpiiimder 'Vthet in--service category. They had appeared fob..,.th.g;:.q1.physical efficiency test and thergeafter; they written test. As per the n0ttifieatie.n"th'e're'is 116 minimum marks prescribed in the writéten sTiidset=vh0 have been qualified in the physieaiefficienegrtest are eligible to take the written test. »F;'V0r_V0n the basis of the merit in the written will be called for the interview.
Interview earries 20 marks. For the selection of general it merit candidates, 225 meritorious candidates in the list were called for the interview and selected 7 5 general merit W 33 category, thereafter the candidates belonging to the' SC 81 ST, Category--l and other backward category were"'fil'l«ed.aA1Ip as per the reservation policy of the State GoVei'nn1:e1lilt;'~ ' Horrble Supreme Court in a judgmem. ' ; a sec 283 in the case of POST oaiegijijzxrei':fi§si51'19ef:'e 'oIa' MEDICAL EDUCATION AN»D:Vp:l"RESE}3\,RCH_ll VVVTHERSLV V/s K.L.NARASIMHAN,-AND ANo*l§HER helamaai ' It is settled Iaw:{rp.tl:at?§.p'if l4a--l;'Dalith or Tribe candidatepgot se1e'c_:tedl.. pior".l"ad'1i1is'sion to a course or'aip};)oiri:mer1~i to p'oV5t...<3I1 the basis of he should not be treated'ae'l§§esle1*\fled:Ileafididate. Only one who doels',_r1o_t ll"gelE'l.l.a'd.rf;eislsion or appointment by _; 'Virtue of r_eIaxalior1 of eligibility criteria should llbeiiireated asllalreserve Candidate." aV"§~1i..f1gment reported in 2007(8) SCC 785 in the case of,.__'}'<AJ3ESH KUMAR DARIA V/s RAJASTFEAN meme W " o p'i'sEaxrice COMMISSION AND omeas clearly held that - M 34 "The candidates belonging to such Back Ward Class. may compete for r1on~reserved posts and if they are appointed to the reserved posts on their own meritp,...._ftheir°; number will not be Counted against H reserved for the respective.....Bac.kvvard--:'_C1ass'.A.V Therefore, if the number of :1 T at by their own merit, get A'seI'ected1,»to':dopefjj. competition vacancies, ' 'vefqtials or-. eiityeetds the percentage ;__.of reserve'd»..fo1*'§ SC candidates, it 'ttéanpniopt that the reservation quota H for stoo'tIjvV.fi'i1ed. The entire gteserfv-atio_n intact and available' "in. &"those""se:ieCted under open competition'e.ategory;""- ' ' Further. the..H'0nfb.leA7S'u'preme Court in a judgment rep'o*rt.ed in the Case of RITESH R SA}-I v/s'V'niR;v:.L.a. AND omens has taken a view that- _ other words, while a reserved . '.veatego:y:"ean4didate entitled to admission on the itxi"flbasis4_.ofVVhis merit will have the option of taking a._iad_ii1~isAsion in the Colleges where a specific mimber of seats have been kept reserved for 35 reserved category but while computing the percentage of reservation he will be deemed'i'ytoi. have been admitted as an open candidate and not as a reserved V' candidate."
Hence, it is clear that the selection in merit category has been fi1l€C§._f:1:i}3b among' are on top of merit list. vWVe iinci' is no" infirmity or irregularity in the proctzdiitref' the Selection Committee.
16. pecitvioner that the candidate being extended reservation for the post of 1>§11c¢ is also untenable. The State ._,_Gof¢e'rn;:nent evolves.---«'a new comprehensive Creamy Layer "basis of the Government Orders dated 31- L 1995. As per the said comprehensive "V...Creamy'i1,ayer Policy, it will not apply to direct recruitment post which insisted on a prescribed period of service in a lower post or experience in a post, profession or A' 36 occupation as a qualification or eligibility. In other words. as per the Government Order, the e_"'D_i'1iect Recruitment to the post which insists on--ja '_ period of service in a lower post-ior'expe_rie_nc"e-V 'ir1af'po's-.t, if it Profession or occupation the rule of._Creai11§} not apply. When the rule oi 'apply;
the Appointing Author'ity had""1iof:4ot};er go 'b'ut*"to classify the vacancy in accordance the'v:-resegfvation policy of the State contained in Karnataka Rule 1997.
The the'vVS'eiection Committee is not violative by the Hon'b1e Supreme Courtin INi)RA SA\Vi'11\iEY V/S. UNION OF INDIA referred it 'to aioove';~. S'e1ecti'on"'tothe post of Police Sub--Inspector has 'i4nfaccordance with the reservation policy of the State Cyoverlnrnent reserving 50% of the seats to the R""--._VV"Generai...ii/Ierit candidates and remaining 50% has been _ by the reserved categories.
/P 37
17. In the notification under which, the petitioners have made applications and participated in the selection process, it is made known to the applicantsj selection would be made in accordance of Notification and final selection list be fprepar--edCon S T the basis of percentage of, marks :'sVecure'd_t_i11 referred to in Rule 7 and taitifng into._vcon.§sid"cration the order in force re1atii:1g.A_ olfvvlithie post for Scheduled Caste, Schedule other Backwards Classes in ti_ie"'9rder;i--_of€pirieritpn fully well, the petitionershavle. in the proceedings. Hence, it is not ope-niltox'theeV.'peti'tioners to challenge the rules or pr0.c.edu're prescribed: The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a »..ludg1n.erit'«reported in AIR 1995 SC 1088 in the case of "1w1AnA:fi1;éslt. omsas V/s/ STATE or JAMMU AND KASi~lMvIR.clearly held that ~ "It is now well settled that if a candidate has taken a calculated chance and appeared for the interview then, oniy because the result A« 39 result of interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently that the process of interview was there was some lacuna in the process"'.'~«':_:' . i "ll Hence, the contention of the petitionlias _
18. The KAT has considlered' of the petitioners in 'uponxthe various judgments of this Supreme Court that the there is no t}iij6vv.pI'0C€d'L1l'€ adopted for selecting -. under in--service category. is"fu4i't.h'cr:iobserved that if any candidate from disability while issuing appointment the«.App~ointing Authority will consider the same and Further, the selection candidates
--V shall' iiiideréo training for 17 weeks in the Karnataka k_jStat'e.Ai Police Academy and shall pass the prescribed eégaraination. If the candidate fails to pass the A"
40
examination, he or she shall be reverted to his original cadre, which he belonged to.
19. Srisreeshaila Turkani, learned counsel. the petitioners relying upon the judgment AIR SCW 872 in the case of UNIOl\i_..VOIA§f.IN'i§:iAA OTHERS V/s O.CHAKRADHAR:=,A:conteznded{4.that'=is ' irregularity and illegality inilt-he selection entire selection has to be iju;ash_ed selection process has to be '=-re'cornm;.enced~lliirom the stage of interview. On. the V . V '_ Narayanaswarny, learned c_ounSle.i'f-_for_l'thearcspondents relying upon the judgInent'*l4_repvorted*l.l.i'n:l:"_;2C)07[8] SCC 100 cited supra contended that V-thewcandidate who have taken part in the »seleetioAn«.pro'c:e_ss knowing fully well the process laid down t;l1e1'ein,l 't}iey;= cannot question the saine. There is no sublstaricehlin the judgment relied upon by Sri.Shreeshail we find that there is no irregularity in the ' process of selection.
/9% 41
20. We examined the matter in detail and found that there is no infirmity or irregularity in the said order. The petitioners have not made out any case to the order passed by the KAT. Further. on the entire matter once again, weWfoun_d"..«thatiV'th_ere--7isnot it merit in any one of the eoniétentions .'n:jg'ed'~ it;s.:5}'--~.%tI1e petitioners. Accordingly, We the ....._w_°R1>1'?R» All the writ petiti'o.n's_aI_e ciisiniise-etd Sdl-i Fudge Sdl-it ' " ~ «. , ~ 4 'judge