Karnataka High Court
S.D. Sridhar vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 15 June, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2004(5)KARLJ509, 2004 LAB IC 2463, 2004 AIR - KANT. H. C. R. 2120, (2004) 5 KANT LJ 509, (2004) 6 SERVLR 783, (2004) 3 KCCR 1812
Author: R. Gururajan
Bench: R. Gururajan
ORDER R. Gururajan, J.
1. Petitioner is an Orthopaedically Handicapped person and he belongs to OBC category. The disability of the petitioner is due to post polio paralysis with pelvic obliquity. The disability extent is upto 65%. An advertisement was issued by the second respondent calling for applications for the post of Engineering Assistant Grade II. Petitioner applied for the said post. According to the petitioner 48 candidates applied for the said post and six candidates were found eligible. Respondents 2 and 3 relaxed the conditions of enrolment in terms of Annexure-D. According to the petitioner, out of the shortlisted candidates respondent enrolled two candidates. One is appointed in the Bangalore office and the other candidate is appointed in the Hyderabad Office. Petitioner states that the third respondent on his own accord to help his candidate who had secured just fifty per cent marks had not only relaxed the percentage from 60 to 50 but also ignored those candidates who were outstanding and had secured more than 60 per cent marks. He states that discriminatory treatment is meted out to him in the case on hand. There is no reason as to why the respondents relaxed the conditions. With these allegations petitioner is before me seeking for a direction to quash the impugned order vide Annexure-A, dated 9-9-2002 issued by respondent 2 and direct respondent 1 to grant immediate appointment to the petitioner in the post of Engineering Assistant Grade II with effect from the date respondent 4 was selected.
2. Respondents entered appearance. A detailed statement of objections is filed and in the objections statement it is stated that there is no arbitrariness in the relaxation nor any intent to favour, any particular candidate much less than that of 4th respondent. It is stated that the relaxation itself was resorted with a view to make the selection process objective and therefore have a wider choice since the post to which the petitioner had applied for belongs to level 2 of scientific/engineering officers (Group (II)) which has as its requirement of a minimum educational qualification combined with work experience. The implication of such relaxation brought in four more candidates within the zone of consideration of different disciplines and therefore in no way could mean to favour any particular candidate much less the 4th respondent. They further say that eligibility condition may be relaxed in such cases. They rely on the advertisement, They further say that petitioner has not approached them with clean hands. He has been adopting most undesirable methods and indulging in maligning the integrity of the functionaries of the institute and foisting false cases with CBI, Commissioner of Disabilities etc. There is also a complaint against the petitioner in the Sanjaynagar Police Station in February 2001 for disturbing the peace and harmony and for threatening to assault in the residential premises of the Administrative Officer which is produced as Exhibit R. 4. They have also produced Exs. R. 5 to R. 9 letters of apology of the petitioner and a subsequent letter Ex. R. 10. They justify their action.
3. After hearing the learned Counsel, I have carefully perused the material on record. From the material on record, it is seen that an advertisement was issued by the respondents calling for applications for two posts of Engineering Assistant Grade II reserved for orthopaedically handicapped and belonging to OBC category. Petitioner applied for the said post. His application was not considered. Petitioner made a grievance of non-consideration and he was issued with an answer in terms of Annexure-A. They say that the petitioner did not meet the requirement for calling for an interview. Ministry of Personnel has provided reservation for physically handicapped persons as I seem from Annexure-R2. It also provides for relaxation of standards in selection of physically handicapped persons against reserved vacancies. Material on record would reveal that with a view to provide wider choice the committee has chosen to relax the marks from 60% to 50% and work experience from 5 to 4 years. This has been termed as arbitrary by the petitioner. The original file was made available. It is seen therefrom that a special clearance drive to fill up 2 Group B backlog vacancies reserved for disabled category (Orthopaedically Handicapped OBC) was launched by advertising in the employment news and the Indian Express on all India basis in the month of August 1999 for appointment to the post of Engineering Assistant Grade II in the scale of pay of Rs. 5500-175-9000. The age, qualification and experience prescribed was 43 years (including relaxation) and I class 3 year Diploma in Engineering Technology in Civil/Electrical/Electronics/Mechanical/Instrumentation/ Mettalurgical/Chemical/Computer Engineering Plus 5 years relevant experience. However, since sufficient number of candidates with I class in 3 year Diploma and with 5 years experience were not available, the competent authority relaxed I Class to II Class 3 year Diploma and 5 years Experience to 4 years. In response to the advertisement, 48 applications were received, but only 9 candidates were shortlisted and called for an interview. A selection committee was constituted and the committee consisted of experts and they have chosen to select respondent 4 in the matter. This in my view cannot be termed as arbitrary in the given circumstances. It cannot be forgotten that the Orthopaedically Handicapped persons are to be considered in terms of the reservation policy of the Government. Reservation policy provides for relaxation so also the advertisement. The relaxation has been done with a view to provide wider choice and that cannot be termed as arbitrary as sought to be argued by the petitioner. Selection of the fourth respondent is based on facts and on the basis of the recommendations made by the selection committee. It is fairly well-settled that the selection committee is the best judge in the matter of selection unless the said selection is vitiated either on account of mala fides or any other factor. No such material is placed on record except making a reference that the respondents are interested in fourth respondent. No acceptable material is placed with regard to selection of the fourth respondent on consideration other than merits. In these circumstances, the selection of the fourth respondent cannot be disputed on the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. Learned Counsel has placed reliance on various judgments. Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Chandra Verma v.The Chancellor, C.A. No. 1451 of 1988, DD: 21-8-1990, was with regard to a selection made by the University. It is a case of termination. The facts of the case would show that appointment was made in pursuance of advertisement in which number of the reserved posts was not given subject wise and was declared to be in valid. This case stands on a totally different footing than the facts of the present case.
5. The judgment in (1997)2 SCC 60, is with regard to recruitment process. That was a case in which the Court was considering with regard to zonal selection. It was a case where the selection was done for candidates who have secured lesser marks and it was in those circumstances, the Court ruled that Article 14 was violated in the said case.
6. The Supreme Court Union Territory of Chandigarh v. Dilbagh Singh, and Ors., was considering with regard to unfair selection list and in those circumstances Court ruled that there is arbitrariness.
7. Krishan Yadav and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors., is with regard to arbitrary selection.
8. I am not referring to all the judgments since the facts and circumstances of each case differ. Petitioner is unable to show with reference to the facts of this case that respondents are playing fraud or has acted contrary to any provision of law. On the other hand, material on record would show that with a view to provide better opportunity, the committee has exercised its relaxation power in the larger interest of providing wider choice to the handicapped persons. In these circumstances, I am unable to accept the argument of the petitioner that their exists arbitrariness in the case on hand.
9. I must also refer to the judgments cited by the respondents. It is seen from the material on record that the petitioner could not comply with the relaxation in terms of the selection committee. Unless a candidate is found to be eligible he cannot seek an employment as a matter of right. I must also notice at this stage, a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Keshayya Channayya Hiremath v. University of Agricultural Sciences and Ors., 1971(2) Mys. L.J. 330 DB with regard to selection and relaxation of qualification. This Court ruled that relaxation is permissible in selection. In these circumstances I am satisfied that no case is made out by the petitioner for my interference.
10. Lastly, I must also notice a serious contention urged by the respondent. Admittedly petitioner wants himself to be appointed to the post of Assistant Engineer Grade II. He has made several references with regard to R4. But, surprisingly, petitioner has chosen to delete the names of respondents 3 and 4 who were selected by the committee. The law is well-settled that no relief can be granted to the detriment of those persons who are not parties before the Court. Deletion of R3 and 4 also disentitles the petitioner from getting any relief in this Court.
11. I cannot but notice the conduct of the petitioner in the case on hand. Respondents are public authorities. They called for applications and a committee was constituted for the purpose of selection. It is rather unfortunate to notice that the petitioner has chosen to create a scene in the respondent office resulting in filing of a police complaint by the respondent. The complaint has been filed by the administrative officer to the Sub-Inspector of Police in Jayanagar. In the said complaint it is stated that the petitioner is one of the applicants and he has tried to reach the Administrative Officer despite making it clear that no enquiry with regard to employment is entertained. He has knocked at the door of the Administrative Officer and hurled abuses and gave threatening statements. In fact it is also seen from Annexure-L that the petitioner seems to have created some news item. When these facts were confronted to the petitioner, he regrets for the incident. Petitioner in his letter has apologised and in these circumstances without going into allegations and counter allegations, I would like to close the matter at this stage. However, I have to observe that public employment is to be obtained not by recommendations or threats but by competition. Any back door entry in any manner would affect the purity and fair selection in public employment.
12. I deem it proper to clarify that liberty is reserved to the petitioner to apply for any future vacancies and in the event of the petitioner applying, the respondents are to consider the same on its merits without in any way being influenced by this order. I also deem it proper to say that the rehabilitating agency of the Government of India may consider the case of the petitioner seriously and help him in getting a suitable employment in accordance with law.
13. In the result, petition stands rejected.