Karnataka High Court
Sri Malappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 October, 2018
Bench: L.Narayana Swamy, G.Narendar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2018
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
WRIT PETITION Nos.20630-20645 OF 2017(S-KAT)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI.MALAPPA
S/O. SRI.HANUMANTH RAMASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
MAHALA ROJA VILLAGE,
SAGAR POST, SHAHAPUR TALLUK,
YADGIRI DISTRICT - 585 323
2. SRI.SHANTAYYA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
S/O SRI.VEERABHADRAYYA CHENDUR
R/AT VEERAPUR, BANAPUR POST,
YELBURGA TALLUK,
KOPPAL DISTRICT.
3. SRI.ASHOK
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
S/O SRI.MALLIKARJUNA
R/AT, 1ST WARD,
SAHUKAR COLONY, BEVANAHALLI,
KOPPALA TALUK AND
2
DISTRICT - 583 239
4. SRI.ASHOK KUMAR
S/O BASAVANT RAO,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
RESIDING AT PLOT NO.239,
BANASHANKARI NILAYA,
POOJA COLONY, KUNSOOR ROAD,
GULBARGA TQ & DISTRICT.
5. SMT.PADMINI DOMBALE
D/O SRI.SANTHOSH DOMBALE,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
R/AT BHAVANI BIJALGAON,
BELKONI B.H. POST,
AURAD B TALUK,
BIDAR DISTRICT - 585 443
6. SRI.NARASIMHA REDDY.P
S/O SRI.NARASIMHA,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
RESIDING AT POST PURTIPLI,
PURTIPLI BUS STAND,
RAICHUR - 584 202
7. SRI.SANTHOSH,
S/O GALYANNA WALIKAR,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
RESIDING AT SANGAVI T. TELKUR POST,
SEDAM TALUK,
GULBARGA DISTRICT - 585 320
8. SRI.SANTHOSH KUMAR,
S/O TRIPPANNA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1/17 NEAR AMBEDKAR CHOWK
UDHAL, HUMNABAD TALUK,
BIDAR DISTRICT - 585 412
3
9. SRI.CHIDAMBARA SAJJI,
S/O SRI. GAJENDRA SAJJI,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
R/AT BACHIGONDANAHALLI,
MALEVER, HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI TALUK,
BELLARY DISTRICT - 583 212
10. SRI.SANTHOSH
S/O SRI. ISHWARA JADHAV
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
RESIDING AT MALEGAON THANDA,
CHINNEGAON POST, AURAD B TALUK,
BIDAR DISTRICT - 585 443
11. SRI.JUBERAHMAD
S/O MAHAMADSABEER,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 4/7/149-A,
MEGAPET, MUDGAL,
LINGASAGUR TALUK,
RAICHUR DISTRICT - 584 125
12. SRI.SRIKANTHA,
S/O SRI.BHIMESHAPPA CHAVAN,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
RESIDING AT SOMPUR TANDA,
SEVALAL STREET, NAGALAPURA POST,
LINGASAGUR TALUK,
RAICHUR DISTRICT - 584 125
13. SRI.MANJUNATHA
S/O SRI.KOTRABASAPPA HAKARI
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
RESIDING AT GONDABAL VILLAGE,
KOPPAL TALUK AND
KOPPAL DISTRICT - 583 231.
14. SRI.BASAVALINGAPPA POOJAR,
S/O SRI.AMARAPPA POOJAR,
4
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
RESIDING AT KEB COLONY, RAICHUR,
BEHIND KEB GUEST HOUSE,
RAICHUR TALUK,
RAICHUR DISTRICT - 584 101.
15. SRI.RAVI KUMAR S/O SRI.HANUMANTHAPA,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
RESIDING AT VENKATARAMANA NAGAR CAMP
R H NO.1 POST,
RAICHUR DISTRICT - 584 128
16. SRI.POTHALINGA N S/O BHEEMANNA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NEAR KURAGODU ROAD,
SIRAGUPPA TALUK, BELLARY DISTRICT,
TANTANAKATTE SIRIGIRI POST,
BELLARY DISTRICT - 583 120 ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.I.R.BIRADAR & SRI.G.G.CHAGASHETTI, ADVS. FOR P1;
SRI.AMEET KUMAR DESHPANDE, ADV. FOR P4;
SRI.SUBRAMANYA BHAT.M., ADV. )
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
HOME DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE - 560 001
2. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
TRAINING, RECRUITMENT & CO-ORDINATOR,
CARLTON BHAVAN,
PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE - 1
3. THE CHAIRMAN
POLICE CONSTABLE WIRELESS,
SELECTION COMMITTEE
5
M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE - 1.
4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
WIRELESS, NO.1, CORNER HOUSE,
M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE - 01.
5. MEMBER SECRETARY &
DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF
POLICE (WIRELESS) (INCHARGE),
CENTRAL DIVISION, CUBBON PARK
BANGALORE - 09.
6. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
CAR (CITY ARMED RESERVE),
ADUGODI, SOUTH BANGALORE - 30
7. SRI.SHARANA BASAVA,
S/O SRI.AMARESH UPPALADADDI,
AT POST RAGALAPARVI,
AREA RAGALAPARVI, SINDHANUR TALUK,
RAICHUR DISTRICT - 584 128
8. SRI.RAGHAVENDRA,
S/O. SRI.CHANDRAHAS GANGAJI,
R/AT, BEHIND AGRICULTURE
RAGHAVENDRA NIVAS, AREA,
AURAD.B, AURAD B TALUK,
BIDAR DISTRICT - 585 326
9. SRI.C.V.ARUNA KUMAR,
S/O SRI.C.V.NAGABHUSHANAPPA,
NEAR GOVERNMENT SCHOOL MAIN ROAD,
AREA, HAGARANURU, HADAGALI TALUK,
BELLARY DISTRICT - 583 216
10. SRI.SUJITH. M.K.,
S/O MALLIKARJUN.K,
R/AT, UDGIR ROAD,
AREA NAJARET COLONY,
6
AURAD TALUK,
BIDAR DISTRICT - 585 326
11. SRI.AMBARISH,
S/O SRI.VEERANNA
R/AT, NO.5-5-352/1,
NEAR HOSALLI CROSS,
AREA YADGIR, YADGIR TALLUK,
YADGIR DISTRICT - 585 202
12. SRI.SRINIVAS
S/O.NAGANATH KANTHALE
R/AT HOKAVANA, AREA POST HOKAVANA,
AURAD B TALLUK,
BIDAR DISTRICT - 585 326
13. SRI.VIJAYA KUMAR,
S/O SRI.BABURAO,
R/AT, KARANJI K, AREA POST RAIPALLI,
AURAD B TALLUK,
BIDAR DISTRICT - 585 326
14. SRI.VINOD KUMAR,
S/O SRI.BABU SHOROLIKAR,
R/AT OLD GANG AREA,
AURAD B, AURAD B TALLUK,
BIDAR DISTRICT - 585 326
15. SRI.VEERESH
S/O SRI.HONNAPPA,
AT BUDIVALA POST,
BUDIVALA CAMP, AREA BUDIVALA,
SINDHANUR TALUK,
RAICHUR DISTRICT - 584 128
16. SRI.SHREEDAR NIRANI,
S/O SRI.ASHOK NIRANI,
R/AT BANKLAGA
AREA GOUR B POST,
7
AFZALPUR TALUK,
GULBARGA DISTRICT - 58.
17. SRI.JAGADISH KUMAR,
S/O. SRI.SANGANATH,
NEAR GOURISHANKAR TEMPLE,
AREA HIPPARAGA S.N.
JEWARGI TALUK
GULBARGA DISTRICT - 585 310
18. SRI.PRABHU
S/O SRI.SOMNATH
R/AT KOTGYAL, AURAD TALUK,
BIDAR DISTRICT - 585 417
19. SRI.SANTHOSH KUMAR MALLANNA HUGAR,
S/O. SRI.MALLANNA HUGAR,
R/AT HUNASAGI, AREA HUNASAGI,
NEAR GRAMADEVATE TEMPLE,
SHORAPUR TALUK,
YADGIR DISTRICT - 585 215
20. SRI.BASANAGOUDA
S/O SRI.AMAREGOUDA BASANAGOUDA
C/O RAVI KUMAR, GANJAHALLI SHETTY
VEERABHADRAPPA SHETTY STREET,
PLOT NO.18, SHOP NO.60,
AREA RAJENDRA GUNJ,
RAICHUR TALUK & DISTRICT - 584 102
21. SRI.AMBADAS
S/O VEERAPPA BALATE,
NEAR BUDDHA TEMPLE SUNDAL,
AREA SUNDAL POST,
AURAD B TALLUK,
BIDAR DISTRICT - 585 326
22. SRI.IMAM SAB
S/O SRI.NASEERUDDIN
8
CHOUDRI STREET,
BEHIND JOSHI HOSPITAL, AREA MUDGAL
LINGASUGUR TALUK,
RAICHUR DISTRICT - 584 125
23. SRI.PRASHANTHAGOUDA
S/O SHIVANAGOUDA GULLAPPA GOUDA,
GOUDAR STREET,
AREA BANNIKOPPA, YELBURGA TALUK,
KOPPAL DISTRICT - 583 238
24. SRI.MANJUNATH MADDI,
S/O SRI.SURESH MADDI,
R/AT GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL HEAD QUARTER,
DORANAHALLI POST,
SHANKARAPUR TALUK,
YADGIR DISTRICT - 585 223
25. SRI.RAFI
S/O. SRI.YADUL MIYYA
R/AT, NEAR AMBEDKAR CIRCLE,
YERNALLI POST,
BIDAR DISTRICT - 585 402
26. SRI.NARESH
S/O SRI.ANJANAYYA JALLA,
R/AT LAXMIPURA POST, (ARKERA.K)
BHEERAPPA KATTI, SHORAPUR TALUK,
YADGIR DISTRICT - 585 304.
27. SRI.GURUSHANT PATIL
S/O SRI.CHENNAMALLAPPA PATIL
R/AT JEWARGI B, JEWARGI B POST,
AFZALPURA TALUK,
GULBARGA DISTRICT - 585 301
28. SRI.SHIVAKUMAR ISHAPPA MALEKOPPA,
S/O SRI. ISHAPPA MALEKOPPA
R/AT ITAGI VILLAGE, YELBURGA TALUK,
9
KOPPAL DISTRICT - 583 232
29. SMT.NAGASHREE
D/O SRI.SHIVARAMAREDDY
R/AT PLOT NO.29,
BEHIND MAHARSHI VIDYA MANDIR
SHAHABAD ROAD, RAJAPUT,
VIBHUTI NAGAR,
GULBARGA DISTRICT - 584 128
30. SMT.SUMANGALA
D/O. SRI.ERAPPA KURI,
R/AT CHIKKASINDOGI,
NEAR GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL,
KOPPAL TALUK,
KOPPAL DISTRICT ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.R.V.NADAGOUDA, AAG FOR R1-R6;
SRI.A.M.NAGARAL, ADV. FOR R8, R10 TO R19;
SRI.AMARESH S ROJA, ADV. FOR R20 - R23;
R9, R7, R25, R27 TO R29, R26 R30 ARE SERVED
NOTICE TO R24 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DTD: 31.10.2017)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE COMMON ORDER DATED 12.4.2017 PASSED BY THE
HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
BANGALORE IN APPLICATIONS NO.1988-90/2016, 4055/2016,
4810/2016, 4356-4361, 9399-9400/2016 AND 9685-9688/2015
AT ANNEX-J AS THE SAME SUFFERS FROM ERRORS APPARENT
ON THE FACE OF RECORD AND ETC.,.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 23.02.2018 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, NARAYANASWAMY
J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
10
ORDER
The petitioners have filed these writ petitions challenging the order dated 12.04.2017 passed by Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore, hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal' for short, in Application Nos.1988-90/2016, 4055/2016, 4810/2016,4356-4361/2016, 9399-9400/2016, and 9685- 9622/2015. By the said order, the Tribunal has rejected the applications filed by the petitioners.
2. The facts of the case to be stated in brief are that petitioners applied to the posts of Police Constables (Wireless) in pursuance of the employment notification dated 19.6.2014. The private respondents also submitted their applications. Although, they had claimed reservation under Hyderabad-Karnataka Region, they did not produce the supporting residence certificate in support of the said reservation. Therefore, some of them were treated as General Merit candidates. It is s condition prescribed in the employment notification that the candidates were required to possess valid eligibility certificates as on the last date prescribed for submission of applications.
11
3. The petitioners and the party respondents were subjected to Endurance Test, Physical Standard Test and written examination. They were also subjected to Medical examination and verification of original documents. At the time of verification of original documents, it was found that some of the private respondents, did not possess the required eligibility certificates issued by the competent authority as on the last date of submission of their applications. Hence they were treated as general candidates. The petitioners had produced valid certificates in respect of reservation under Hyderabad-Karnataka Region and accordingly, they were provisionally selected in the Provisional Select List dated 7.3.2015. The entire selection process was over and the respondent authority was required to issue appointment orders to the petitioners.
4. However, in a strange and arbitrary manner and in contravention of conditions stipulated in the notification, a corrigendum came to be issued on 9.9.2015 by the Joint Secretary to Government, Hyderabad-Karnataka Special Cell, DPAR stating that the candidates claiming reservation under Article 371-J, would be permitted to file their applications based on self- 12 declaration alone and they could be considered for selection and they have to produce the original documents at the time of verification. Based on the said corrigendum, a revised provisional select list dated 19.10.2015 was published including names of private respondents under local cadre and names of the petitioners were removed.
5. Aggrieved by the said action, petitioners approached Tribunal by filing one set of applications. During pendency of the applications before the Tribunal, respondent authority published final list dated 28.3.2016. Challenging the final list, corrigendum dated 9.9.2015 and orders of appointment issued in favour of some of the private respondents, one set of applications came to be filed before the Tribunal.
6. By the order dated 12.04.2017, the Tribunal has rejected the applications filed by the petitioners directing the respondent authority to go ahead with the selection in terms of the final select list dated 28.3.2016. Being aggrieved, the present writ petitions are filed.
13
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Advocate General for R1 to R6 and learned counsel for the private respondents and perused the case papers.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the rules of recruitment cannot be altered in the middle of selection process. The Employment Notification mandated that candidates should possess valid eligibility Certificate as on the last date prescribed for submission of the application. The private respondents did not possess valid Certificates and hence they were rightly excluded from benefit of local cadre reservation and they were considered as General Merit candidates. The addendum which was issued after the selection process was over could not have been relied upon in respect of the present selection. However, based on the addendum prescribing that they could be included on the basis of self declaration and at the time of verification of documents, they could produce the residence certificate, the private respondents were included in the revised provisional select list dated 23.3.2015 and names of the petitioners were removed, which is an irregularity and the Tribunal ought to have interfered and quashed the revised provisional select list followed by final 14 select list. The Tribunal has committed a grave illegality in passing the order dated 12.04.2017 rejecting the applications filed by the petitioners. The mandatory requirement that the candidates should possess the residence certificate as on the last date prescribed for submission of the applications, the same could not have been relaxed by means of an administrative order. It is further submitted that though the Tribunal made extensive reference to the memo filed by the respondent authority to accommodate the petitioners under non Hyderabad-Karnataka quota, the Tribunal did not show any inclination to accept such an arrangement to the disadvantage of the petitioners. The corrigendum dated 9.9.2015 lacked competency to alter the mandatory conditions of recruitment specified in the employment notification, based on which the revised provisional select list was published on 19.10.2015.
9. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General supported the order passed by the Tribunal. It is submitted that in order to protect interest of candidates from Hyderabad-Karnataka region and to give them the benefit of reservation under Article 371-J the revised provisional select list 15 was prepared. Only after thorough verification of the reservation claimed by the candidates, they have considered their candidature and mere inclusion of names of the petitioners in the provisional select list did not give them any vested right and since the private respondents' selection is based on their merit and on reservation, the writ petitions are devoid of merit.
10. The learned counsel for the private respondents supported the order. It is submitted that the revised provisional select list was prepared after utmost application of mind and after considering the grievances faced by all the candidates. They applied to the posts claiming reservation under Article 371-J, they went through the selection process and only at the time of verification of documents, since they did not obtain the local residence certificate before 19.7.2014, their applications were marked as not claiming the benefit under local cadre and they were considered under General Merit category. The private respondents were otherwise eligible and have secured more marks than the petitioners. Considering this aspect of the matter, the Joint Secretary, Hyderabad Karnataka Special Region issued a circular dated 22.5.2015 clarifying the general conditions issued in 16 the Karnataka Public Employment (Reservation of posts to Hyderabad Karnataka Region) Order 2013 thereby permitting all the candidates to furnish self declaratory certificate to proceed with the selection process. By an addendum dated 9.9.2015 to the circular dated 22.5.2015, the Joint Secretary, Hyderabad Karnataka Special Region further clarified about the self declaratory certificate. The Chairman, Police Constable Wireless Selection Committee on the basis of the cabinet special committee resolution dated 29.8.2015 and also considering the injustice caused to such candidates and to avail the benefit of reservation under Article 371-J, the Chairman of the Selection Committee issued the revised provisional select list. The petitioners are less meritorious than the private respondents and therefore they are not entitled to challenge the selection of the private respondents.
11. The point that arises for consideration is, whether the order passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal rejecting the applications of the petitioners suffers from any irregularity calling for interference by this Court? Our finding would be in the negative for the following reasons.
17
12. Both the petitioners and the private respondents have gone through the process of selection. In the first provisional select list names of the petitioners were found a place and some of the private respondents were not found. Some of the private respondents could not produce the residence certificates as on 19.07.2014 as they could not get it from the competent authority. In view of the fact that many of the candidates found it difficult to produce the local residence certificate in time, the Government by circular dated 22.05.2015 and further addendum dated 9.9.2015, gave clarification with regard to mode of submission of applications and documents for claiming reservation under Article 371-J. It is in the order that there was huge confusion requiring clarification from the Government with regard to implementation of Karnataka Public Employment (Reservation of posts to Hyderabad Karnataka Region) Order 2013. In this regard, the Government organised a meeting of the Deputy Commissioners, Chief Executive Officers and other senior officers of the Hyderabad Karnataka Districts to understand the difficulties in providing the benefit of reservation. After a detailed discussion, certain clarifications were issued to remove the defects in providing reservation. Even after issuance of 18 circular dated 22.5.2015, there were some confusions, thereby addendum was issued on 9.9.2015. Based on the said addendum, the revised provisional select list dated 19.10.2015 was published. The petitioners do not dispute that the private respondents are more meritorious than them. It is also not in dispute that the private respondents hail from Hyderabad-Karnataka region. It is to be mentioned that just because the authorities did not issue the local residence certifictes to the eligible candidates in time, such deserving candidates cannot be denied their right of selection. In this regard, the Tribunal relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in RAM KUMAR GIJROYA vs., DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD & ANOTHER (2016) 4 SCC 754. It is held therein that non-submission of an OBC category reservation certificate within the cut off date mentioned in the advertisement cannot render a candidate ineligible for selection, as it would amount to denial of equality of opportunity contemplated under Article 14, 15, 16 & 39A of the Constitution of India. It is also further held therein that candidate submitting reservation certificate after cut off date mentioned in the advertisement cannot be held ineligible for selection to the 19 post. The ratio laid down in the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is aptly applicable to the case on hand.
13. In the circumstances, the Tribunal rightly held that such a benefit of reservation, given to the candidates belonging to reservation category, in the constitution, cannot be taken away merely based on the fact that, the reservation document, i.e., local residence certificate was submitted after the cut off date mentioned in the advertisement notification.
14. It is contended by the petitioners that the Tribunal was not inclined to accept the memo filed by the respondent authority to accommodate the petitioners under non-Hyderabad-Karnataka category. The Tribunal has dealt with this aspect of the matter in Para-12 of the order clarifying the right procedure, that after selecting the private respondents against Hyderabad Karnataka quota, if there are any vacancies in General Merit or otherwise under Non-Hyderabad Karnataka quota, the case of the petitioners may be considered along with all other eligible but not selected candidates. The Tribunal is justified in observing so in the order because as otherwise it would lead to denial of opportunity to others who are not selected and who have not approached the 20 Tribunal. Therefore, it is not that petitioners' right of selection to the post subject to their eligibility and they being within the zone of consideration is not completely lost.
15. In the circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal has not committed any irregularity in passing the impugned order calling for interference by this Court. Hence the point raised for consideration is accordingly answered.
Therefore, there is no merit in the writ petitions. The writ petitions are accordingly rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE.
akd