Karnataka High Court
Ranjeet S/O Roopsingh Rathod vs Gublarga University Anr on 28 January, 2014
Author: Mohan M Shantanagoudar
Bench: Mohan .M. Shantanagoudar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
GULBARGA BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN .M. SHANTANAGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION NO.82249/2012 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
Rajneet S/o Roopsingh Rathod
Age: 38 years, Occ: Lecturer,
R/o C/o Ekambraya (HOD),
Electrical Department,
S.G. Polytechnic, Sanjay Gandhi Nagar, Bellary
..Petitioner
(By Sri Venkatesh G. Advocate )
AND :
1. Gulbarga University,
Gulbaga through its Registrar General.
2. Omprakash N. Jadhav
Age: 35 years,
R/o H.No.178, Shanti Nagar,
MSK Mill Road, Gulbarga - 585 105. ... Respondents
(By Sri Veeresh B.Patil, Adv. for R1
Sri Chaitanyakumar Adv., for R2 )
2
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India, praying to pass a writ of
certiorari, quashing Annexure-E dated 30.3.2012 and to
direct respondent No.1 to appoint the petitioner etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary hearing in
'B' Group this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
The appointment of the 2nd respondent to the post of Technical Officer-1 by the Respondent No.1 - University is called in question in this writ petition. Petitioner as well as the 2nd respondent applied for the post of Technical Officer-1 pursuant to the notification dated 3.3.2012 inviting applications for the said post. The said post was meant for Scheduled Caste category. Undisputedly, the petitioner and the 2nd respondent are from Scheduled Caste category. The second respondent is selected and consequently, the petitioner is not selected. 3
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is having requisite qualification of Second Class B.E. in Electronics with sufficient experience and he has got more experience than the second respondent and therefore he ought to have been selected.
The said submission is opposed by the learned advocate for respondent No.2, who contends that the 2nd respondent is more experienced than the petitioner.
3. It is no doubt true that the petitioner has got the qualification of Diploma (Electronics and Communication) and B.E. (Electronics and Communication). The marks obtained in B.E. Degree by the petitioner are 3,572 out of 6,400, whereas the 2nd respondent has obtained marks of 3,820 out of 6,400. The percentage of marks of the petitioner is 55.81%, whereas percentage of marks of the 2nd respondent is 59.68%. The petitioner has worked as 4 Apprentice in Karnataka Power Corporation Limited from 4.11.2004 to 3.11.2005 and he has worked as Lecturer in Electrical and Electronics Engineering in Sanjay Gandhi Polytechnic College from 14.9.2007 to 16.3.2012.
From the above, it is clear that though the petitioner has completed B.E. Degree in Electronics, he has not got three years working experience in operation of Modern Instruments and their repairs and maintenance/assistance in R & D Instruments, which is the prescribed qualification. It is also mentioned that the candidates will be tested for the aptitude for Instrumentation or Diploma in Mechanical Engineering with five years experience in workshop.
4. The second respondent has got B.E. (Electronics & Instrumentation). As aforementioned, he has got 59.68% of marks i.e., higher than the marks of the petitioner. He has got three years experience as Test Engineer in the 5 Affinity Software Private Limited, Bangalore. He has worked as Academy Coordinator in the Educomp Solutions Limited, New Delhi for six years. He has also worked as Technical Officer in the 1st respondent University in the Department of University Science Instrumentation Centre from June-2011 till filing of the application.
5. It is clear from the records that the petitioner has got experience from 2004 onwards, whereas the 2nd respondent has got experience from 2002 onwards. Moreover the 2nd respondent has got the practical experience as Test Engineer in the Affinity Software Private Limited, Bangalore through GSM Technology, Bangalore. He has also worked as Technical Officer in the 1st respondent University in the department of University Science Instrumentation Centre. Thus the 2nd respondent has got more experience than the petitioner. Since the Respondent No.2 is already working as Technical Officer-1 6 in the different department of the 1st respondent University and as he has got higher experience than the petitioner, he is rightly selected. Hence no interference is called for.
Petition fails and the same stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Gss/-